PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The view the TV Host says is false is that the defendant is completely innocent, and there's plenty of evidence that he is. This answer is, in some ways, an inversion of the argument, where it's the TV Host who doesn't present real evidence of guilt.

Incorrect. The TV Host's argument is based on the opinion of the prosecutor, so it's not based on assuming that it's correct. This answer describes a circular argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
All the evidence points to the defendant being innocent, but the prosecutor brought charges, so there's good reason to believe the defendant isn't innocent.

Answer Anticipation:
The TV Host here throws out all of the evidence and the opinion of the jury in order to declare that there's a good chance the defendant is guilty. Why? Because the prosecutor brought charges. There's no argument other than a reliance on this authority figure, so this argument commits a common error in reasoning—an inappropriate appeal to authority. A prosecutor may be an expert on the law, but she's not an expert on whether a specific person is innocent or guilty.

Answer Explanation:
The only reason this TV Host believes the defendant isn't completely innocent is that the prosecutor brought charges. So she's relying on the word of an authority figure to an undue degree.

Key Takeaway:
When the reasoning used in reaching a conclusion is essentially, "Because X said so," the argument is probably unduly relying on the opinion of an expert. More broadly, any time an expert is cited, make sure they're an appropriate source for the conclusion being drawn.

Incorrect. The reason the TV Host believes the defendant isn't completely innocent is based on a reliance on someone who made a legal judgment—the prosecutor. The TV Host isn't arguing—as this answer suggests—that the defendant is morally guilty despite possibly not being legally guilty.

Incorrect. The TV Host doesn't question the jury's verdict because it was reached quickly, but rather because it was at odds with the prosecutor's view.