Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. This answer doesn't connect to the legality of the chase, which is key to the Judge's logic. This answer also talks about other factors, but no such factors are discussed.

Incorrect. The suspect was committing a crime—he had possession of an illegal weapon. So, if anything, this answer suggests the flight from the police was illegal. That said, it doesn't speak to the legality of the cops chasing the suspect, so it's out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Judgment - The illegal weapon is inadmissible

Evidence collected during illegal chase → Inadmissible
The police gave chase because the suspect ran, but that doesn't create reasonable suspicion of a crime

Answer Anticipation:
Most Strengthen (Principle) questions reach a judgment based on details of a situation. Usually, however, there isn't a literal judgment coming from a judge!

Here, the Judge rules that an illegal weapon that a suspect dumped while running from the cops is inadmissible. We should check the details of the case to see which of them seemingly supports this conclusion.

When we do, we see something interesting—there is a principle provided by the Judge herself! That principle establishes that evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible. Since her conclusion is that this weapon is inadmissible, she must have determined that the weapon was collected during an illegal chase.

What do we learn about the chase? It was started because the suspect ran, but a suspect running doesn't create a reasonable suspicion of a crime. While that speaks to the suspicions of a crime that the cops had, it doesn't speak to the legality of the chase.

We've identified the gap in the Judge's logic, so we should anticipate an answer that connects these concepts:
If there isn't a reasonable suspicion of a crime before a chase, that chase is illegal.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a necessary condition for a legal chase—there's a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. However, the police gave chase because the suspect ran, which doesn't provide a reasonable suspicion. Since this chase didn't meet a necessary condition for a legal chase, it was an illegal chase, and the principle the Judge established in the stimulus applies. This answer allows the conclusion the Judge makes—that the evidence collected here during an illegal chase should be dismissed—to be drawn, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions almost always have judgments in the conclusion based on details in the premises. Start with that judgment, and then work backwards to see which elements of it are supported by the details, and which aren't, and then connect the pieces that aren't.

Incorrect. The Judge's ruling is based on whether something is illegal, not whether it should be.

Incorrect. In this case, the suspect's actions didn't create such a reasonable suspicion, so this answer doesn't apply to the case at hand.