Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S3 · Q4 Detective: Bill has been accused

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

Detective: Bill has been accused of committing the burglary at the warehouse last night.

Conclusion

Bill did not commit the burglary.

Evidence

Even though he's been accused, no one saw him in the vicinity of the warehouse.

Evaluation

Just because we don't have an eyewitness doesn't show that Bill is innocent. This is the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, or one that otherwise makes the objection that Bill could be guilty even if there are no eyewitnesses.

4.

The reasoning in the detective's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. treats evidence that is irrelevant

    No Evidence

    There is no evidence presented. The author's evidence is that "there is no evidence". To the extent that the author is talking about whether anyone saw Bill at the scene of the crime, his physical appearance (that nobody saw) is definitely relevant to his identity.

    1% picked this

  2. merely attacks the character of

    Not Ad Hominem

    The evidence doesn't say anything bad about the accusers. This answer choice refers to the famous flaw Ad Hominem.

    0% picked this

  3. fails to provide independent evidence

    Opposite

    This author is concluding that Bill is innocent. This answer would be correct if it said that the author "fails to provide (his own) independent evidence that Bill did not commit the burglary".

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    treats a lack of evidence

    Why this is right

    The premise is about a lack of evidence, "nobody saw him in the vicinity". And the conclusion is an exoneration, "Bill did not commit the burglary". This describes the move from Unproven to Proven False.

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

    95% picked this

  5. fails to establish the true

    Not a Flaw

    You don't have to solve the crime in order to prove that someone's innocent. The author is only trying to prove that Bill didn't commit the crime. If he has a rock solid alibi, we can know that it wasn't Bill, even if we never learn who did commit the burglary.

    0% 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