LSAT 103 – Section 1 – Question 05

LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 05

September 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:49

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT103 S1 Q05	+LR +Exp	Evaluate +Eval	A 80% 165 B 2% 153 C 1% 152 D 0% 151 E 17% 164	120 133 157	+Easiest	147.884 +SubsectionMedium

Attorneys for a criminal defendant charged that the government, in a coverup, had destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant in a case. The government replied that there is no evidence that would even tend to support the defendant in the case.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

This is an usual stimulus because there’s no argument. Instead, we have a claim and a reply to that claim.

Attorneys’ claim: The government destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant.

Government’s reply: There is presently no evidence that supports the defendant.

Notable Assumptions

There are no assumptions, because there’s no argument here. But notice that the government’s reply doesn’t actually address the point made by the attorneys. The attorneys’ point is that there was once supporting evidence, before it was destroyed. But the government’s response is all about the present situation—there’s now no supporting evidence. This leaves open the possibility that the attorneys are right: the government destroyed the evidence, which is why it no longer exists.

It leaves open the question of whether the government had destroyed such evidence.

The government’s reply is all about the present situation—there’s now no supporting evidence. This is completely consistent with the attorneys’ claim that there was once evidence, but the government destroyed it. So the question remains: did the government destroy that evidence?

It establishes that the attorneys’ charge is an exaggeration.

The attorney’s charge is all about what happened in the past, while the government’s reply is solely about the present situation. So, the government’s reply does nothing to counter the attorneys’ charge.

It shows that the attorneys did not know whether their charge was true.

It demonstrates the government’s failure to search for evidence in its files.

The government’s reply might be true—there might currently be no evidence in the government’s files (or anywhere else) to support the defendant. We don’t know. So we can’t conclude that the government failed to search for evidence.

If true, it effectively disproves the charge made on behalf of the defendant.

The attorney’s charge is all about what happened in the past, while the government’s reply is solely about the present situation. So, even if the government’s reply is true, it does nothing to counter the attorneys’ charge.

LSAT 103 – Section 1 – Question 05

LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 05

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel