LSAT 121 – Section 4 – Question 13

LSAT 121 - Section 4 - Question 13

December 2005

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:20

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
PT121 S4 Q13
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
72%
165
B
6%
158
C
2%
158
D
8%
158
E
12%
160
144
153
163
 +Harder 146.544 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard outside the courtroom, so we cannot be sure what she said. Afterward, however, she publicly affirmed her belief in Pemberton’s guilt. Hence, since the jury found Pemberton not guilty, we can conclude that not all of the jury members believed Tagowa’s testimony.

Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that some jurors must not have believed Tagowa’s testimony. His reasoning is that she stated after testifying that she believes Pemberton is guilty, while the jury found Pemberton not guilty.

Identify and Describe Flaw
We don’t know what Tagowa was called to testify about. Therefore, contrary to the columnist’s assumption, we don’t know if her testimony indicated that she thought Pemberton was guilty. It’s thus possible that the jurors both believed her testimony and found Pemberton not guilty.

A
It overlooks that a witness may think that a defendant is guilty even though that witness’s testimony in no way implicates the defendant.
Tagowa’s testimony could have been entirely unrelated to her reasons for believing that Pemberton is guilty. If so, the jurors could have believed Tagowa while still finding Pemberton not guilty.
B
It confuses facts about what certain people believe with facts about what ought to be the case.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing is with ought; it isn’t applicable here, because the author never makes a claim about what ought to be the case.
C
It presumes, without providing warrant, that juries find defendants guilty only if those defendants committed the crimes with which they are charged.
The columnist never opines on the actual guilt of Pemberton, so this can’t be the flaw.
D
It presumes, without providing warrant, that a jury’s finding a defendant not guilty is evidence of dishonesty on the part of someone who testified against the defendant.
The columnist concludes that the jury didn’t believe Tagowa, not that they thought she was dishonest. You can disbelieve a statement without questioning the speaker’s honesty.
E
It fails to consider that jury members sometimes disagree with each other about the significance of a particular person’s testimony.
The columnist does consider this: he concludes that not all jury members believed Tagowa’s testimony. This suggests that jurors disagreed about how much significance to attach to her testimony.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 121 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply