Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument doesn't bring up any evidence—just a lack of evidence.

Incorrect. The Detective doesn't say anything about the accusers other than that they have accused Bill of the burglary, so there's no attack on the person flaw here.

Incorrect. The Detective wants to disprove that theory, so there's no need for her to provide independent evidence that he did it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
No one saw Bill near the crime scene, so he must be innocent.

Answer Anticipation:
Just because no one saw Bill there doesn't mean he wasn't there. Maybe he's just a really good burglar and managed to sneak in without anyone seeing him! Or maybe there was no one around the warehouse last night other than the burglar, so of course no one saw Bill!

In any case, the lack of eyewitnesses seeing someone at the crime scene doesn't mean that the person is innocent. That's an absence of evidence flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the flaw in the Detective's argument. She treats a lack of evidence—no one seeing Bill in the area—as evidence that he's innocent.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument treats a lack of evidence for a viewpoint as establishing the opposite conclusion, it's committing an absence of evidence flaw.

Incorrect. It's possible to rule someone out as the burglar without identifying the true criminal. That person might have an alibi, or have been in a different country at the time of the crime!