LSAT 103 – Section 2 – Question 21

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 21

September 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:43

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 S2 Q21
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
0%
160
B
30%
164
C
2%
158
D
2%
155
E
65%
169
150
160
170
 +Hardest 149.468 +SubsectionMedium

Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued to do consulting work between the time of his arrest for attempted murder and the start of this trial. But I contend that Ziegler was insane at the time that he fired the shot. This is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that the accusers have submitted no evidence that he was sane at the time he pulled the trigger, only that he was sane some time after he did so.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Ziegler was insane at the time he fired the shot. This is based on the fact that the people accusing Ziegler of a crime submitted no evidence that Ziegler was sane at the time of the shot. They’ve only submitted evidence Ziegler was sane after the shot.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the fact that there’s evidence Ziegler was sane after the shot constitutes evidence that Ziegler was sane at the time of the shot, too. In addition, the author overlooks the fact that, even if there was a failure to submit evidence of Ziegler’s sanity at the time of the shot, that doesn’t prove Ziegler was insane at the time. Absence of evidence for a particular proposition (that Ziegler was sane at the time of the shot) does not constitute evidence against that proposition.

A
It presumes that being a well-educated professional is relevant to being guilty or innocent.
The author does not offer the claim about Ziegler’s consulting work as evidence Ziegler is innocent. So, the author does not assume that this consulting work is relevant to being guilty or innocent.
B
It concludes on the basis of evidence against Ziegler’s being sane that there is a lack of evidence for Ziegler’s being sane.
The argument is not based on evidence against Ziegler’s being sane. It’s based on the claim that there’s a lack of evidence that Ziegler was sane. Also, the argument does not conclude that there’s a lack of evidence of Ziegler’s sanity. It concludes that Ziegler was insane.
C
It fails to consider that Ziegler might have been insane when he worked as a consultant.
The author concludes that Ziegler was insane at the time of the shot. If he was also insane when he worked as a consultant, that doesn’t suggest Ziegler might have been sane at the time of the shot. So, the possibility described by (C) does not undermine the author’s reasoning.
D
It presumes that whether one is sane is relevant to whether one is morally responsible for one’s actions.
Moral responsibility has nothing to do with the argument. The author’s conclusion is that Ziegler was insane at the time he fired the shot. The conclusion is not that Ziegler shouldn’t be held morally responsible.
E
It fails to consider the possibility that Ziegler’s being sane after the shooting is an indication that he was sane at the time of the shooting.
The accusers have submitted evidence that Ziegler was sane after the shot. If this constitutes evidence that Ziegler was sane at the time of the shot, then the author’s conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply