LSAT 116 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario, the judge…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The citizen concludes that an open trial would serve the public interest.

REASONING: The citizen argues that because the police asked for help and made the public interested in the case, it would serve the public interest to have an open trial.

ANALYSIS: The citizen is using the term “public interest” in two different senses. One is: What is the public interested in. The other is: What would be best for the public.

___________

1. There is no generalization; the citizen is only referring to what should be done in this particular case.
2. CORRECT. This is it. Word ambiguity errors are fairly common on the LSAT. Another example would be “rare” steak vs. “rare” diamonds.
3. The judge and the police are part of the same system. Even if they weren’t, it would be possible for the judge’s reasoning to be inconsistent with that of the police, which is what the citizen is claiming.
4. There is no sensationalism here; the citizen is simply listing facts, fairly blandly.
5. The stimulus does not refer to the right to a fair trial; it refers to the public interest. We don’t know if trial fairness would be compromised by an open trial.

Recap: The question begins with “In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario, the judge”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.