Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S3 · Q10 Lawyer: This witness acknowledges

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

Lawyer: This witness acknowledges being present at the restaurant and watching when my client, a famous television personality, was assaulted.

Evidence

The witness claims to recognize the RA + ~RC assailant, but not my client.

Conclusion

The witness's testimony should be WTE excluded.

Evaluate

The argument assumes that if a RA + ~RC → WTE witness does not recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness’s testimony should be excluded.

10.

The lawyer's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. If a witness claims to

    Negated Assumption

    This answer negates the RA + RC → ~WTE assumption of the argument.

    6% picked this

  2. There are other witnesses who

    Weakens

    If anything, this supports the accuracy of the witness’s testimony.

    1% picked this

  3. It is impossible to determine

    Out of Scope – Term Shift

    There is a difference between claiming to recognize and actually recognizing the assailant. The lawyer’s argument does not rest on whether the witness actually recognized the assailant, but rather on what the witness claimed.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    The testimony of a witness

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap WTE → RA + RC between recognizing both parties to the assault and whether to exclude the witness’s testimony. This answer conceals it’s meaning by way of a contrapositive.

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

    79% picked this

  5. It is unlikely that anyone

    Too Weak

    This does undermine the witness’s testimony, but is too weak to complete invalidate. Nor does it offer any justification for the lawyer’s conclusion that the witness’s testimony should be excluded.

    12% 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