LSAT 116 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 116 - Section 3 - Question 18

June 2004

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

Target time: 1:04

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
PT116 S3 Q18	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 1% 155 B 69% 165 C 18% 162 D 8% 159 E 5% 155	135 151 167	+Medium	146.244 +SubsectionMedium

In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario, the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom. Her decision was based on the judgment that the public interest would not be served by allowing spectators. A local citizen argued, “They pleaded with the public to help find the victim; they pleaded with the public to provide tips; they aroused the public interest, then they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest. These actions are inconsistent.”

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The local citizen claims that the measure to ban spectators from the courtroom was inconsistent with the stated reasoning for taking the measure. Since the court stirred up public interest with requests for help, the citizen claims that it’s hypocritical for public interest to be invoked as the reason for restricting courtroom attendance.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is an “equivocation fallacy”, meaning that the local citizen uses different meanings of a word interchangeably in an invalid way. In the argument’s premises, the term “public interest” refers to the fact that the public cared about the case. Later, however, the term refers to what would be good for the public. There’s no contradiction because those two concepts are very different.

generalizes from an atypical case

The citizen never generalized. The argument was only concerned with this one particular turn of events.

trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term “public interest”

This describes the way the term “public interest” was treated as though it referred to the same concept even though the term’s meaning shifted throughout the argument.

overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help

The central flaw with the argument was the inconsistent use of a term. No matter who specifically made the plea for help, the supposed contraction could still stand.

attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals

The citizen refers to events that actually happened, so the premises weren’t merely sensationalistic appeals. Employing rhetoric isn’t a logical flaw in and of itself.

presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right to a fair trial

This is irrelevant. Actions could still be inconsistent regardless of what the defendant’s rights are. Also, there’s no reason to believe that allowing spectators would infringe on the defendant's rights.

LSAT 116 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 116 - Section 3 - Question 18

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 116 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel