Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S1 · Q5 Attorneys for a criminal defendant

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Attorneys for a criminal defendant charged that the government, in a coverup, had destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant in a case.

Defense's Accusation

The government destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant.

Government's Reply

There is no evidence that would even seem to support the defendant in this case.

Evaluate

They want us to hear the Defense lawyer responding,

Think about what the world looks like if the attorneys are right. Helpful evidence existed, the government destroyed it, and now there is no helpful evidence to be found. The government's reply is a true statement in that scenario.

So the government's reply isn't really addressing / refuting the charge that they destroyed evidence. If they had said , then that would be denying the charge that they destroyed evidence. But by using present tense, it's not really contradicting what the defense accused.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the reply doesn't really counter the charge, since the reply is totally compatible with the charge being true.

5.

Which one of the following is the most accurate evaluation of the government's reply?

  1. Correct

    It leaves open the question

    Why this is right

    The charge is that evidence was destroyed. The reply says only that no evidence exists now, which is what would happen if the government had destroyed the evidence. Nothing in the reply addresses whether the government destroyed anything, so the question the attorneys raised is left exactly where it was.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    79% picked this

  2. It establishes that the attorneys’

    Bad Description

    The reply doesn't establish anything, since it's an unsupported assertion. And since the reply is compatible with the attorneys' charge, it doesn't actually undermine it at all.

    2% picked this

  3. It shows that the attorneys

    Unsupported

    The reply doesn't show anything, since it's an unsupported assertion. And since the reply is compatible with the attorneys' charge, it doesn't actually undermine them or cast doubt on their knowledge.

    1% picked this

  4. It demonstrates the government’s failure

    Bad Description

    The reply does not describe any search, nor does it reveal that one was skipped. For all we know, the government searched thoroughly and found nothing, or destroyed everything, or never looked.

    2% picked this

  5. If true, it effectively disproves

    Bad Description

    Our whole complaint is that the government's statement could be true and it wouldn't contradict what the attorneys charged.

    16% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free