PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 10
Television host: While it's true that the defendant(48 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the television(8 more words not shown)
- Atakes lack of(13 more words not shown)
- Bpresupposes as evidence(8 more words not shown)
- Cplaces undue reliance(7 more words not shown)
- Dconfuses legal standards(7 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that a(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What reason does the host have to keep doubting the defendant?
The defendant offered an alibi—evidence of being somewhere else—and considerable exculpatory evidence, meaning evidence pointing away from guilt. The jury quickly acquitted. The host nevertheless thinks there must be good reason to believe the defendant is not completely innocent.
I'm willing to hear a reason. Perhaps the host thinks the defendant helped plan the crime despite being elsewhere when it happened. But that would need evidence of its own. The mere fact that a prosecutor brought charges doesn't supply it.
What we’re looking for
A prosecutor could start with incomplete information or make a mistake, with the problem becoming clear at trial. A prosecutor could also act improperly. Either way, bringing charges doesn't guarantee that there is a good basis for continuing to doubt this defendant's innocence after the evidence has been presented. For the flaw question, look for the host's unwarranted trust in that charging decision.
Working the answers
- A
The host isn't saying, “There is no evidence of innocence, so the defendant must be guilty.” The host expressly acknowledges an alibi and exculpatory evidence. The mistake is discounting that evidence because the prosecutor brought charges, not treating the absence of evidence as proof against a view.
- B
The premise is that charges were brought; the conclusion is that there must be good reason to doubt complete innocence. Those are different claims. A circular argument would simply offer the conclusion again as its own support, as in “We have good reason to doubt innocence because there is good reason to doubt innocence.” Here, the charging decision is separate evidence that the host puts too much weight on.
- CCorrect
The prosecutor is the authority figure. The host treats that person's decision to bring charges as assurance that there must be a sound basis for suspicion, despite the defense evidence and acquittal. But that decision could have been mistaken or based on information later discredited. The prosecutor's position doesn't make the judgment immune to error.
- D
Something can be legal and still objectionable—for example, ordinary rudeness. But the host doesn't shift from whether the defendant committed or participated in the crime to a separate moral criticism. The stated reason for suspicion remains the prosecutor's decision to bring charges, not a different moral standard.
- E
The host mentions the quick acquittal but doesn't use its speed as the basis for suspicion. An argument like “The jury decided in ten minutes, so something must be wrong with its verdict” would fit E. This host instead relies on the fact that charges were brought in the first place.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.