Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q14 Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified

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

Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the robbery occurred after 1:50 A.M., then, the moon having set at 1:45 A.M., it would have been too dark for Klein to recognize the perpetrator.

Conclusion

There was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.

Evidence

The moon set at 1:45 am. The moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. The robbery (and thus the eyewitness identification) occurred between 1:15 and 1:30am.

Evaluate

If we're the defense lawyer, tasked with arguing against this prosecutor, how can we respond to this? We know the position we represent (the Anti-Conclusion) is that .

The prosecution's argument comes down to, .

But the fact that it hadn't set yet doesn't prove that there was enough light.

What if it was so low in the sky that nearby buildings blocked it from Klein's angle. What if the perpetrator was wearing a brimmed hat that cast a shadow on his face? What if Klein was wearing tinted lenses that make his vision darker?

Goal

Even though this looks like a Flaw question stem, since all the answers are prefaced by "overlooks the possibility", we'll treat it as a Weaken question.

(Whenever we fails to consider / overlooks the possibility starting off an answer choice on Flaw, we think, "if true, would this weaken?")

Look for an answer introducing a possible objection about some other factor that could lead to there not being enough light, even though the moon was out.

14.

The prosecutor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it overlooks which one of the following possibilities?

  1. Klein may be mistaken about

    Out of Scope

    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% picked this

  2. The perpetrator may closely resemble

    Out of Scope

    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% picked this

  3. Klein may have been too

    Not an Objection

    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.

    9% picked this

  4. Without having been there, Dr.

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  5. Correct

    During the robbery the moon’s

    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% 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