Last visit was: 08 Aug 2026, 14:55 It is currently 08 Aug 2026, 14:55
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
aurobindomahanty
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Last visit: 03 Apr 2019
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
873
 [8]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19 (D) IIMA IIMB IIM (A) WP Carey" 20 (II) McCombs '20 (S) IESE '20
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '19 (D) IIMA IIMB IIM (A) WP Carey" 20 (II) McCombs '20 (S) IESE '20
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 66
Kudos: 873
 [8]
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented 12 Jul 2017, 06:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:36) correct 54% (01:48) wrong based on 455 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

The reasoning in the television host's argument is flawed in that the argument

(A) takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false
(B) presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish
(C) places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure
(D) confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt
(E) concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

Source: LSAT
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
User avatar
sobby
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Last visit: 24 Jan 2022
Posts: 441
Own Kudos:
400
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 441
Kudos: 400
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented 12 Jul 2017, 07:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aurobindomahanty
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

The reasoning in the television host's argument is flawed in that the argument

(A) takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false
(B) presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish
(C) places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure
(D) confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt
(E) concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

Source: LSAT
Show more

this is a good question ..definitely not a sub 600 level .....

""the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place""---it reflect that if prosecutor brought case in the court , defendant would be involved in some crime .
it is kind of faith towards the position of lawyer...

A-Television host is not arguing any thing about lack of evidence .
B-out
C- Yes, as per highlighted above
D-nothing about relation of moral and legal standards.
E-it is just a fact that judgement reached quickly ..television host is not arguing on this ...
User avatar
DharLog
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Last visit: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 312
Own Kudos:
345
Given Kudos: 334
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE:Information Technology (Other)
Posts: 312
Kudos: 345
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented 02 Mar 2018, 05:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aurobindomahanty
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

The reasoning in the television host's argument is flawed in that the argument

(A) takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false
(B) presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish
(C) places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure
(D) confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt
(E) concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

Source: LSAT
Show more

A. He does not take as grounds the lack of evidence. His argument is that prosecutor has brought charges. Out.
B. Conclusion is that the defendant is guilty in the opinion of television host. It simply can not be the evidence. Out.
C. The host says that prosecutor has brought charges ----> the defendant is guilty ---> yes, he relyes to much on prosecutor. True.
D. Nothing about moral in the passage. Out.
E. The information that the judjment was reached quickly is minor. The major information (the grounds) is that prosecutor has brought charges.
User avatar
Auro411
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2026
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 45
Posts: 22
Kudos: 1
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented 30 Jul 2026, 04:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey, this is the easy one if you stick to the pre-think:

Pre Think: Flaw is named as Appeal to Authority which makes our answer straigt away C.



Hence, the answer option is C. In this case, the host is placing undue reliance on authority rather than evidence, which makes this as a clean answer.

aurobindomahanty
Television host: While it's true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place.

The reasoning in the television host's argument is flawed in that the argument

(A) takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false
(B) presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish
(C) places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure
(D) confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt
(E) concludes that a judgment is suspicious merely on the grounds that it was reached quickly

Source: LSAT
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
703 posts