Q8

[JaneF756]

I'm not sure I understand why (B) is wrong. In line 1-4, the "alibis" is just an example of information that the police interviewers seek to elicit.

Thanks for your help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Usually, when LSAT asks us, "The author brought up X in order to" (primarily to / serves to),
they want us to reinforce the broader claim that came right before or right after the detail.

After all, it's not "WHAT did the author say about the detail. It's WHY was the author even bringing this detail up?"

My prephrase would be similar to yours
"confirming alibis" was one of several examples of what police interviewers would love to get out of a cooperating witness.

(B) looks crazy close, but it's about getting information out of SUSPECTS, not WITNESSES.

We aren't doing the interview with the Defendant. We're doing it with people who may have witnessed the defendant commit the crime.

(C) is saying the same thing as (B).
the kind of info we'd like to elicit = a type of use we have for an effective interview

(C) is just nonspecific about who's being questioned, and so it doesn't say anything wrong.
(B) meanwhile uses much more expected wording, is easier to interpret, and so we fall in love with it so much that we don't notice that the last word is off.

So mean.