LSAT 103 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The evidence wasn’t admissible.

REASONING: Running from police isn’t enough to make the police suspect the man committed a crime. Police only chased after the man because he ran.

If you collect evidence during an illegal chase, the evidence can’t be admitted.

ANALYSIS: The judge hasn’t shown the chase was illegal. There was no evidence that the suspect committed a crime, but maybe police were nonetheless allowed to chase the man.

The right answer strengthens the argument by showing it’s illegal to chase someone just because they ran from the police.

___________

1. We don’t know if there were other factors, so this doesn’t help.
2. This would make the suspect’s flight illegal (he was carrying an illegal weapon, which is a crime). But it doesn’t necessarily make the policemen’s chase illegal – in fact, this principle slightly strengthens the idea that police were allowed to chase the man. Presumably, if it’s illegal for a suspect to run then it’s legal for the police to chase him.
3. CORRECT. There was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, therefore the chase was illegal. Which means the evidence was inadmissible.
4. We already know from the stimulus that flight from the police isn’t a crime. It doesn’t even create the suspicion of a crime, so this adds nothing.
5. In this case, there was no suspicion of an illegal act, so this is irrelevant. But if this applied, it would weaken the judge’s argument. We’re trying to show the chase was illegal.

Recap: The question begins with “In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle Justify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.