Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 1 · Question 5

Question prompt

Attorneys for a criminal Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Facts

Valid or Flawed

NA

Question Type

Argument Evaluation Questions

Stimulus Summary

Attorneys: The government destroyed evidence supporting the defendant’s innocence Government: No such evidence exists

Answer Anticipation

First, let’s talk about this question type. We’re tasked with evaluating the government’s reply to the claims of the defense attorneys. However, neither side really makes an argument - the attorneys make a claim, and the government replies with a claim. So this isn’t really an Argument Evaluation question, but we’re tasked with evaluating something, so let’s approach it as one. Digging in, we can see that the government’s reply is meant to serve as a defense/rebuttal to the charge made by the defense attorneys. They do claim, after all, that the government destroyed evidence as a part of a coverup. And when a rebuttal is made, we should start by seeing if the response addresses the initial point. So does the government here argue that they didn’t destroy evidence? Nope - they claim that no evidence exists. Well, that’s 100% compatible with them having destroyed it! So the government here fails to fully address the claim made against them - let’s find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It leaves open the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    The government says that no such evidence exists, leaving open the possibility that it did exist and they destroyed it, as the defense claims. This answer is therefore correct.
  2. B
    It establishes that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Let’s assume for a second the government proved that no such evidence ever existed. In that case, the defense’s claim would be false - something with no truth to it - rather than an exaggeration - a claim that plays up some kernel of truth.
  3. C
    It shows that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer would require the government showing that some piece of information required to prove their point couldn’t have been known by the attorneys. That’s not what it goes.
  4. D
    It demonstrates the government's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    It’s not established that the evidence in question does exist. Additionally, the government says that the evidence doesn’t exist, not that they didn’t find it, so this answer is out of scope.
  5. E
    If true, it effectively Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    If true, it doesn’t disprove the claim made by the defense attorneys. In fact, if the evidence did exist at some point, the government’s claim would support their view (or, at least, the view that someone destroyed that evidence).

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 84%
  2. B 2%
  3. C 1%
  4. D 1%
  5. E 11%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion