Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q18 In a highly publicized kidnapping

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

In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario, the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom.

Local Citizens' Conclusion

These actions are inconsistent. rephrase: Pleading with the public to help find the victim contradicts not allowing the public to attend the trial.

Local Citizens' Evidence

Pleading with the public to help find the victim aroused the public interest. But they're saying that allowing us to attend the trial would not serve the public interest.

Evaluate

The citizen is finding a contradiction based on the concept of "public interest". Engaging the local citizens in the manhunt for the victim got them very interested in this kidnapping. So naturally, the citizen, is thinking, they are now very interested in attending / watching the trial.

How could the judge declare that the public interest would not be served by viewing the trial, if the public is so interested in viewing the trial?

There isn't any contradiction here. It's just two different senses of the term "public interest".

When we say that they pleaded with the public for help in finding the victim, thereby arousing the public's interest, we mean ... arousing the public's curiosity / intrigue.

When the judge says that allowing the public to attend this trial would not serve the public interest, she means ... it would not be good for the integrity of the judicial proceedings / it would not uphold the court's mission to deliver equal justice under the law.

Goal

Using the same term / concept in two very different ways is one of the ten famous flaws. The fancy word for it is Equivocation. But we often see answer choices alluding to this flaw (almost always incorrect answer choices, by the way), that simply say that the author used the term "X" in two different ways.

18.

The reasoning in the local citizen's argument is flawed because this argument

  1. generalizes from an atypical case

    Not Sampling

    This refers to another of the ten famous flaws, Sampling, in which the argument is based on a small set of data points, which the author then assumes is representative of some larger group in her conclusion. This citizen's argument doesn't rely on any sample of data points, nor is their conclusion a generalization.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    trades on an ambiguity with

    Why this is right

    This is pointing out the Equivocation flaw. The first usage of public interest in the citizen's argument refers to curiosity / intrigue / hunger-for-drama. The second usage of public interest refers to the goal of conducting a fair trial, free of distractions.

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

    64% picked this

  3. overlooks the fact that the

    Doesn't Overlook

    Given that the citizen is using the plural pronoun "they", he doesn't seem to be directly accusing the singular judge of hypocrisy. He seems to be railing against the law enforcement community more broadly. The initial "they" who pleaded with the public for help in finding the victim was presumably people from the police or other investigative bodies. The "they" who won't let the public attend the trial presumably refers to people at the courthouse, including the judge. We can also say that even if we thought this were some sort of objection, it wouldn't be why this argument is most vulnerable to criticism. We're supposed to be telling this author, "They didn't contradict themselves -- those are two completely different meanings to the term public interest", not saying, "They didn't contradict themselves. One person pleaded for help. Another denied you admission. It wasn't the same entity, so no entity actually contradicted itself."

    18% picked this

  4. attempts to support its conclusion

    Not Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion

    This refers to another of the ten famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeals (to Emotion / to Dubious Expert), in which the argument either relies on emotions/fear rather than logic or when the argument relies on the testimony of someone who hasn't been established to be a qualified expert in the field under discussion. There are no sensationalistic appeals in the evidence. The evidence says: - they pleaded with the public for help - they aroused the public's interest - they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest

    11% picked this

  5. presumes that the public’s right

    Too Strong: obviously more important

    Technically the author is only arguing that the two actions contradict each other. The author isn't saying that one of the actions is more correct than the other. This answer makes it seem like the conclusion was, "Thus, the judge should allow the public to attend." If we negated this supposed assumption and said, "nah, the public's right to know is only equally important to the defendant's right to a fair trial", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. The author could still argue that the two actions were contradicting each other.

    6% 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