QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.
REASONING: The moon set at 1:45 AM. The robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30 AM. Dr. Yuge acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set.
ANALYSIS: This sounds very damning, but the prosecutor hasn’t established that there actually was light at the time. Is “considerable light” enough to make a reliable identification? Is Klein nearsighted?
The right answer shows that the moon’s light could have been blocked by clouds. Surely you’ve been out on a moonlit night. Sometimes you can see and sometimes things interfere with the light.
- The prosecutor claims to have conclusively shown that the robbery happened between 1:15 and 1:30. We’ll believe him.
- The prosecutor is only arguing that there was enough light to possibly make an identification. Whether there was a risk that the identification was incorrect due to an uncanny resemble isn’t relevant (and this is pretty implausible anyway).
- This is tempting but the conclusion is specifically about the amount of light. The prosecutor claims there was enough.
- Dr. Yuge sounds like an expert. An expert could testify as to how bright the moon would have been even if they weren’t there.
- CORRECT. The prosecutor ignores the possibility that something got in the way of the moon.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly