PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 8
When presented with the evidence against him, Ellison(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAfter Price confessed(30 more words not shown)
- BShakila's secretary has(28 more words not shown)
- CAfter Takashi told(40 more words not shown)
- DAfter a conservation(34 more words not shown)
- ERamirez was forced(45 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Ellison admits that he used company facilities for illegal transactions. So the argument is not claiming that he is innocent. Its objection concerns how the company found out: it recorded his conversations illegally.
Does that make punishment unjustified? That is a separate question from whether Ellison did something wrong. The author says the company can demand that he stop, but cannot punish him because it obtained the evidence illegally. We do not have to supply a legal rule about what courts would admit; the passage itself gives us the judgment we need to understand.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to apply the same principle elsewhere. I would look for someone discovering wrongdoing through an illegal method and then being unable to justify punishing the wrongdoer for that reason. An answer about some unrelated wrongdoing by the accuser would not have the same connection. The illegal act needs to be part of obtaining the evidence.
Working the answers
- A
Long steals from Price in retaliation for Price's theft. The problem is the retaliatory action itself, not an illegal method of discovering Price's offense. The original company did something illegal to obtain evidence; A never gives Long that corresponding role.
- B
Shakila has committed the same offense as her secretary. That raises a concern about hypocrisy, but it does not show that she learned of his offense illegally. Having done something wrong in the past is different from breaking the law to obtain the evidence now being used.
- C
This is tempting because Takashi has broken a rule too. But his curfew violation was on Monday, while he saw Sarah at the movies on Tuesday. Nothing says the curfew violation enabled him to discover Sarah's conduct. It is an unrelated offense, not the method of collecting evidence.
There is also a different arrangement of people: Takashi supplies information to Sarah's parents, who would punish her. In the original, the company both obtains the evidence illegally and proposes punishment. C misses the crucial evidence-gathering connection, even though it contains a confession and another person's wrongdoing.
- DCorrect
Kuttner corresponds to Ellison: each admits the underlying wrongdoing after it is discovered. The conservation officer corresponds to the company: she discovers the traps while trespassing, just as the company discovers the transactions through illegal recording.
The conclusion then matches too. Because the officer obtained the evidence through her own illegal conduct, she cannot justifiably punish Kuttner. D preserves the link between illegal evidence gathering and unjustified punishment.
- E
The board's past pardons concern how it treated other offenders. The original does not base its judgment on a history of leniency or a requirement to keep treating similar cases alike. We need a problem with obtaining the evidence, and E gives no such problem.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.