Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 4 · Question 13

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Tagowa (after testimony): I believe Pemberto is guilty

Jury: Pemberton is not guilty

Conclusion - Some members of the jury didn't believe Tagowa's testimony

Answer Anticipation:
There are two elements of this argument that suggest specific flaws.

First, the argument relies on what Tagowa publicly stated since there's no public evidence available about her testimony. However, whenever an argument relies on what someone says or claims, there's always the possibility that they're lying. While Tagowa might have publicly stated that she believes Pemberton is guilty, it's possible that she said the exact opposite during her testimony.

Second, the conclusion makes a determination about the jury's feelings towards Tagowa's testimony. But we don't have any premises about what that testimony said! In fact, the premises establish that we don't know what Tagowa said in her testimony. It's possible that she was an expert witness who didn't provide any testimony about Pemberton at all—maybe she's a medical examiner and only testified about cause of death. In bringing up a determination about something the premises don't establish anything about (in fact, the premises establish that there isn't any information known about it!), the argument is making a jump.

Let's stay flexible and look for both of these flaws as we read through the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the second jump we identified. Even if Tagowa does believe that Pemberton is guilty, that doesn't mean she testified to that. She may have testified about a technical issue. As such, the jury wouldn't have had to discount her opinion in reaching their verdict as they didn't even know it.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever there's no direct evidence of a claim on the LSAT, that claim is suspect, and you should consider all the ways in which the indirect evidence might not lead to the establishment of that claim—including the possibility that people are lying.

Incorrect. The argument—and the conclusion in particular—doesn't talk about what should/ought to be the case, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument is about the intersection of what the jury thought and what Tagowa thought, not the truth of the situation. Pemberton's guilt is actually out of scope here, since the conclusion is just about whether the jury believed Tagowa's opinion/testimony.

Incorrect. First, there's no evidence that Tagowa testified against the defendant here. Second, there's no accusations that anyone was dishonest—just because someone didn't believe another doesn't mean that that person was being dishonest!

Incorrect. The conclusion is that "not all" of the jury members believed Tagowa, which leaves open the possibility that the jury was split, thus considering the possibility this answer says it fails to consider.