Q14 - Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified

[nazu.s.shaikh]

I'm writing this question without having looked at the answer key. I'm refraining from looking at the answer key because I really want to understand when I am down to 2 choices what can I do to aid my decision in choosing an answer choice ( humor me, even if these two answer choices are the wrong ones, what I am looking for is how to narrow down to one choice when I have two ). As I am down to D & E as my answer choices, both which look appealing to me and make sense to me as well. I'm having a hard time on how to cancel one out.

The question is asking me to choose the answer choice that will make the argument most vulnerable ( aka weaken) the argument, what I am having trouble with is determining to what extent should I be weakening this argument to .. 5% or 95%


Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good, tough question!

Rather than just spill forth the answer. Let's see if we can get you to come to the correct answer without looking for a solution.

Let me ask the following questions...

1. Who's argument are we trying to weaken? Dr Yuge or the prosecutor? The answer to this should suggest one of the two answer choices over the other.

2. In your own mind, when you were thinking about the claim the prosecutor was making, did you believe him/her? If not, why not? If so, what about his argument sounded like confirmation of the prosecutor's conclusion?

You can use your own skepticism regarding the conclusion to help you direct your course.

Let me know if this helps you make a choice. Explain to me your reasoning and we'll see if you took the right direction!

[nazu.s.shaikh]

Well, we're trying to weaken the prosecutors argument but his argument is tied into with Dr. Yuge.. isn't it? Nonetheless the prosecutors argument should be weakened overall.

Dr. Yuge could have acknowledge that the moon was full enough and that very well could be true however he would have to assume that the sky was clear that night and there is no evidence in the stimulus that suggest a clear night? There very well could have been clouds that night and covered up the moon, blocking the light.

Hence, E then?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly!

Also, keep in mind that answer choice (D) might provide reason to call Dr. Yuge into question, but not the prosecutor. Anyway, Dr. Yuge did not assert that it was light enough, but rather acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light. Dr. Yuge never claimed that there was sufficient light at the scene of the robbery.

Good work! Let me know if you have further questions on this one.

[nfpi2006]

So because it's not stated, doesn't it overlook that possibility, I leaned towards D as well. To me, the question doesn't mention either, and although I agree E targets the prosecutor more, Dr. Yuge is tied into it.

Confused, because i think understanding this type of question can help me on others.

[schwingrocker]

Why is C wrong? Is it because the stimulus says there was ENOUGH light to make a reliable identification, but doesn't specify that he necessarily did make a reliable identification?

[michaelsmith925]

C would be wrong since it isn't about the prosecutor's argument. He's arguing that Klein had enough light to see the robber and C doesn't address that, it seems to be a step out from the argument.

Yuge says the moon was full and out at the time of the robbery, the prosecutor takes that to mean that Klein used that full moon to see correctly. So E would challenge the prosecutor's point, D might challenge Yuge's point, C would address someone/something else, but it makes a lot of sense to ask if you want to get the story straight.

I'm not the best at explaining it, but that's how I'm seeing it after reading above.

[fmuirhea]

The question stem also tips you off to the question type a little more specifically here: it's actually asking for an assumption. The phrase "overlooks the possibility" essentially translates to "assumes not to be the case," so you can rework this as a necessary assumption. There is a Manhattan blog post about this idea here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/2012/05/09/the-morbid-flaws/#more-1622.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You guys are making some really good points both about the nature of the flaw as well as some of the incorrect answers. For others, I'd like to take a second and run through the incorrect answers myself:

(A) attributes the know time of the robbery to Klein. But the argument simply says that the time of the robbery has been conclusively proven, and not by Klein.
(B) addresses the issue of whether Klein could make a reliable identification. But the conclusion never suggested that Klein could actually make the identification! The conclusion only maintained that there would be sufficient light for Klein to make the identification. The conclusion is about the amount of light, not whether Klein could actually make a reliable identification of the perpetrator.
(C) has the same issue as answer choice (B). The conclusion is not about Klein's identification, but about the light.
(D) is not true. The argument states that Dr. Yuge testified to the amount of light that was present at certain times of the night - part of the argument's evidence. The assumption (the problem with the argument) lies between the evidence and the conclusion. When evaluating an argument, concede the evidence and when pointing out a flaw, try not to simply say that the argument failed to consider that the evidence is not true. Instead try to say that the conclusion could be wrong even if the evidence were true.

Hope this helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I was caught between (D) and (E) too. However, I think that what drew me to (D) was exactly what was mentioned above: Dr. Yuge's testimony was really a premise. Also, "without having been there" was a little fishy to me. Does he absolutely need to be there in order to know? This would call into question the entire argument - even the background information! Think about it, Yuge is talking about a lot here: when it was too dark, when it was light enough, how full the moon was, etc. He presumably wasn't there for any of that but we take things like the background info as true right? Right.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

I fell for trap answer choice (C). After mulling over this question for the greater part of an hour I think I know why it's wrong.

Premise: The moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set.
Premise: The crime occurred before the moon set.
Conclusion: There would have been sufficient lighting for Klein to make a reliable identification

Flaw: Fails to consider that the crime did not occur in an area that was removed from moon light, perhaps it occurred in a dark alley or maybe the perpetrator was in the shadows the entire time and would have appeared as a silhouette to Klein.

(A) Descriptively accurate but this is not a flaw in the argument, whether or not Klein may have been mistaken about the time is irrelevant.
(B) This is a tempting trap answer choice. The thing is, this answer choice is descriptively accurate but it a flaw in the argument. Those bastards at LSAC want you to think that since the suspect has a doppelgänger that Klein could have misidentified and confused the real suspect with someone that looks like him. This could be true but it is not a flaw in the argument. It doesn't make the fact that there was sufficient moonlight for him to make a reliable identification any less likely. I mean like matt said, the argument does not endeavour to show that Klein actually made a reliably identification but that he had the possibility to do so.
(C) This is the answer choice I picked the first time out. My reasoning was that if he was too upset to make a reliable identification then amount of light was irrelevant, boy was I off the rails with that. This is wrong for reasons similar to B. Like matt said, the argument does not endeavour to show that Klein actually made a reliable identification, but rather that he could have given the light provided by the moon. Even if he was too upset to make an identification, it doesn't make the fact that there was still enough light for him to make a reliable identification any less likely.
(D) Descriptively accurate but not a flaw in the argument.
(E) Bingo.

[sohyun9009]

I'm confused between (c) and (e). In (c), 'in a good light' is mentioned. For me this looks like one of other factors why Klein couldn't make a reliable identification even though there was enough light.
If the wrong answer, (c), doesn't mention 'good light' in stimulus, it would be unrelated to the reasoning or conclusion. Could you explain this part?