PrepTest 135

[lcid:3639] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Judge: The case before Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Principle Questions / Strengthen Questions

Stimulus Summary

Order request: Only a co-defendant and his counsel can be in the courtroom, not the other co-defendants or their counsel.
Problem: Two co-defendants share counsel.
Ruling: The court won’t force anyone to get a new lawyer, so order denied!

Answer Anticipation

First, we need to understand why the problem cited by the court is a problem in this case. Since the order is asking to question the defendants without the other co-defendants or their lawyers present, the goal is to separate them for the questioning. However, since the lawyer for two defendants is the same person, they can’t be separated - if they are present for the questioning of one defendant, then the order would be violated since another defendant’s lawyer was present.
One solution, as the court noted, is to force one of the co-defendants to get a new lawyer. However, that is ruled out. Are there any other solutions? There are - keep that lawyer out of the room during the questioning of at least one of the co-defendants. The judge ignores this possible solution to the problem, so the correct answer should establish that this isn’t possible. And since it’s a principle question, it’ll probably be a more general answer - something similar to, “Defendants have a right to counsel when being questioned.”

Answer choices

  1. A
    A court cannot issue Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The order in question wouldn’t require the disclosure of information, so this answer choice is out of scope. If anything, the order would require that people don’t disclose information (co-defendants and their lawyers sharing info about what happened when the others weren’t present).
  2. B
    Defendants have the right Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    The judge establishes that she won’t force anyone to get new counsel, but she doesn’t establish that it’s required to have a lawyer in the room when you’re being questioned. Keeping the lawyers out would solve the problem with granting the order. However, if defendants have a right to have counsel in the room during questioning, it rules out that solution and makes the judge’s determination that the order can’t be granted stronger.
  3. C
    People being questioned in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The order is about having counsel in the room, not about answering questions that could be incriminating. The order is a determination before the questioning starts.
  4. D
    A plaintiff in a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The defendants in this case weren’t denied the right to question the plaintiff without other plaintiffs present, so this answer is out of scope.
  5. E
    A defendant's legal counsel Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The order in question was a request for something to happen while the plaintiff was questioning the defendants, so this answer is out of scope in that it reverses the situation.

What this tests

Discussion

  • PT 65, S4, Q5 4 replies

    Started by smilde11

View all discussions Start a discussion