Q1 - Because the statement "all gray

[belkeniac]

I feel really dumb not understanding this first question. Can some clarify this question or put it in different terms? Also explain the answer? Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Often the first question isn't very easy. In fact, it is frequently a medium level question put there to shake you up a bit as you enter the section. My advice is to hit the first question a bit slower than the rest of the first 8-9 questions and get off to a good start before picking up the pace.

This argument relies on an analogy. it says that because there is a relationship between gray rabbits and rabbits that the same relationship holds between suspected criminals and actual criminals. The difference here is that "gray rabbits" describes characteristics that exist rather than ones that are merely thought to exist. But being a "suspected criminal" does NOT actually imply that one is a criminal. So the analogy doesn't work, and this is a common error of reasoning that you will see on the LSAT. We're asked to Identify the Flaw, and so ideally we'd like an answer choice to address the issue of an inappropriate analogy. Answer choice (C) does this without mixing up the "supposedly analogous" relationships.

(A) has the right terms but all mixed up. The argument never discusses a relationship between being a criminal and being a rabbit.
(B) has the right terms but all mixed up. The argument never discusses a relationship between being suspected and being a rabbit.
(D) attacks an assumption that is never made. The argument never assumed that all rabbits are gray.
(E) attacks an assumption that is never made. The argument never assumed that all criminals are suspected.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have a question on this one!