PT107 S1 Q14 ExplanationProsecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   Klein may be mistaken about the time of the robbery and so it may have taken place after

   Out of Scope: Klein's Opinion on Time Klein is only presented here as someone who made an identification of the perpetrator. We don't know if Klein testified to the time of the robbery, and it's beyond the current status of this case: they have conclusively shown that the robbery occurred between 1:15-1:30am, so that's a settled part of the case. Contradicting a premise isn't really an objection to reasoning; it's just an objection to a "fact". Objecting to reasoning means showing how the evidence, if true, fails to prove the conclusion.

   5%
2. B

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   The perpetrator may closely resemble someone who was not involved in

   This isn't about whether there was / wasn't enough light. This is about whether or not the perpetrator has a "body double" who could be mistaken for them.

   2%
3. C

   Not an Objection8% picked this

   Klein may have been too upset to make a reliable identification even

   This idea would only help the prosecutor argue that we shouldn't place a lot of trust in Klein's identification. It isn't helping us to argue "there wasn't enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification". This is dealing with an alternative universe where there was enough light.

   8%
4. D

   Not an Objection14% picked this

   Without having been there, Dr. Yuge has no way of knowing whether the

   This feels like it weakens somewhat. Dr. Yuge cannot be 100% certain without having been there. But, similar to (A), we're not objecting to the reasoning here. This is just trying to discredit a premise. Our goal in fighting reasoning is to accept the evidence but challenge the conclusion being drawn. We accept that ... Yuge is right about "too dark after 1:50am" and that "considerable light before moon set", and that robbery occurred between 1:15-1:30am But we need to resist the idea that you can now conclude that "there was enough light". We want to grant the truth of all those premises, but find a way to argue "there wasn't enough light". It's not a strong counterargument to say, "even though all your premises are true, it's still possible that there wasn't enough light, because Dr. Yuge has no way of knowing whether the light was sufficient." Dr. Yuge never weighed in on whether there was or wasn't sufficient light = i.e., enough light for Klein to make a reliable I.D. She only weighed in on whether it would have been too dark after 1:50am and whether the full moon provided "considerable light" before it set.

   14%
5. E

   Correct71% picked this

   During the robbery the moon’s light may have been interfered with by conditions such

   Why this is right

   This allows us to object to the Conclusion, and argue that there wasn't enough light for Klein to make a reliable I.D., because the moon may have been temporarily behind some clouds (which could make Dr. Yuge's testimony suddenly relevant). When the moon is blocked, it's essentially as though the moon is set, and Dr. Yuge has said that had the moon set, it would have been too dark.

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

   71%