Television host: While it's true that

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw Bad Conclusion/Premise Match3% picked this

   takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the

   This refers to the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. Does this author conclude that "a view is false"? Not really. I suppose we could say the jury had the view that "this defendant is innocent", but our author's conclusion is not that "the jury was wrong / the defendant is not innocent". It was more tentative: I still believe that there must be good reason to think the defendant is not totally innocent. Furthermore, the author's evidence definitely didn't say, "the jury had a lack of evidence to support its view". In fact, the evidence acknowledges that the jury had strong evidence for its view.

   3%
2. B

   Not Truly Circular14% picked this

   presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying

   This would feel very tempting to me, since our inability to fight the logic of this argument is due to the last sentence feeling unfair, like the author is assuming some rule because he wants to keep assuming that there's some good reason to think the defendant is somewhat guilty. But is the author assuming her conclusion as evidence? No, her conclusion is that "there must be some good reason to think the defendant is guilty" and her evidence never assumes "there is some good reason to think the defendant is guilty". Her evidence states that, "If a prosecutor brings charges, then there is good reason to think defendant is guilty".

   14%
3. C

   Correct75% picked this

   places undue reliance on the judgments of an

   Why this is right

   This is one of those rare birds in LR in which LSAT is allowing us more or less to object to the truth of a premise. They want us to complain that "the fact that a prosecutor brings charges does not guarantee that there was good reason to brings charges." Prosecutors might bring charges for other reasons (revenge, political favor, bribe) or they might just be bad at their job. Their assessment that there is enough evidence to bring charges might be an incorrect one, where there isn't good reason to think a defendant is guilty but in their minds there is. So this answer about undue reliance is just saying, "This author is overly confident in the idea that prosecutors never make mistaken or corrupted judgments about the quality of the evidence ... prosecutors ethically and accurately bring charges in 100% of cases".

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

   75%
4. D

   Out of Scope: morally guilty5% picked this

   confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards

   We're only talking about whether there is good reason to think that this defendant is legally guilty. This conversation has nothing to do with whether she is morally guilty or not.

   5%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it

   This answer accuses the author's evidence of being one and only one premise: the defendant was quickly acquitted by the jury First of all, that wasn't a premise at all. It was a concession (counterpremise). Secondly, the author concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that the prosecutor thought it was worth bringing charges in the first place.

   3%