Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S4 · Q13 Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the

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

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard outside the courtroom, so we cannot be sure what she said.

Conclusion

Some of the jury members didn't believe Tagowa's testimony.

Evidence

We don't know what she said in the courtroom, but publicly Tagowa affirmed that Pemberton is guilty. However the jury found Pemberton not guilty.

Evaluate

This argument has the classic Curious Fact / Explanation vibe to it.

Curious Fact: Why did the jury acquit Pemberton? Author's Story: Tagowa testified that Pemberton was guilty, but at least one person on the jury didn't believe Tagowa's testimony.

When we see this template we know there are two different pressure points: - could there be some alternate explanation for the Curious Fact? - how plausible is the author's explanation?

On Flaw questions, almost all the correct answers here revolve around the potential existence of alternate explanations. It's a flaw to be so overconfidently sure about one possible way to explain a Causal Mystery when others might exist.

When it comes to other reasons the jury acquitted Pemberton, maybe they all believed Tagowa's testimony, but the jury was bribed by Pemberton so they acquitted him anyway.

Or maybe they all believed Tagowa's testimony, but Tagowa testified that Pemberton was innocent (maybe P was blackmailing Tagowa or threatening Tagowa's family were Tagowa to incriminate Pemberton)

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out that other explanations could exist or suggesting one of these alternate explanations.

13.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the columnist's reasoning?

  1. Correct

    It overlooks that a witness

    Why this is right

    This allows us to reconcile the jury convicting Pemberton with the possibility that they all did believe Tagowa's testimony. Maybe Tagowa is an expert witness who is simply helping the jury to understand how to analyze DNA evidence. Maybe Tagowa was just a doorman who was brought into testify, simply to establish that the murder victim left his apartment around 930am. It's possible that Tagowa's publicly expressed opinion (Pemberton is guilty) is based on Tagowa's holistic assessment of the case, whereas Tagowa's in-court testimony was limited to small details of the case that don't directly establish Pemberton's guilt.

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

    63% picked this

  2. It confuses facts about what

    Out of Scope: ought to be

    The author isn't making a move from "this is what X believes" to "this is what should be the case". There's no normative language like should / ought anywhere in the argument.

    9% picked this

  3. It presumes, without providing warrant,

    Too Strong: only if Illegal Opposite

    The author does seem to assume that, "If not found guilty, then jury must have thought the defendant didn't commit the crime", because the author goes from a Premise about "found not guilty" to a causal conclusion that assumes someone on the jury thinks the defendant didn't commit the crime. This answer, though, is an illegal negation of that: "If found guilty, then jury thinks defendant did commit crime"

    2% picked this

  4. It presumes, without providing warrant,

    Out of Scope: dishonesty

    The author isn't accusing any jury member of being dishonest. She's just saying that at least one juror didn't believe Tagowa's testimony. That could be an honest assessment on the part of the juror, even it turned out to be factually wrong.

    13% picked this

  5. It fails to consider that

    Opposite

    It does not fail to consider that — it is explicitly considering that! The conclusion is specifically allowing for a scenario in which some jury members didn't believe Tagowa's testimony, some did.

    13% 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