In a highly publicized case in Ontario, the judge barred all media

Question

In a highly publicized case in Ontario, the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom. Her decision was based on the judgement that the public interest would not be served by allowing spectators. A local citizen argued, “they pleaded with the public to help find the victim; they pleaded with the public to provide tips; they aroused the public interest, then they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest. These actions are inconsistent.”

The reasoning in the local citizen’s argument is flawed because this argument:

(A) Generalizes from an atypical case
(B) Trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term “public interest”
(C) Overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help
(D) Attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals
(E) Presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right to a fair trial

Source: LSAT

US09 · Accepted Answer

IMO B.

The "public interest" for not allowing people during the trail refers to "welfare of public", the "public interest" aroused refers to "general interest/curiosity of public. The local citizen confusingly uses the two.

chickckens · Answer

C (the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom) for a reason that may not be implied. The police and the judicial system are different entities so this is flawed “they pleaded with the public to help find the victim; they pleaded with the public to provide tips;" It is just that the public is interested in this case and would have liked to participate, and if the case was highly publicized like written the court would like calm and order to make a sound judgement .

vaibhav1221 · Answer

In a highly publicized case in Ontario, the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom. Her decision was based on the judgement that the public interest would not be served by allowing spectators. A local citizen argued, “they pleaded with the public to help find the victim; they pleaded with the public to provide tips; they aroused the public interest, then they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest. These actions are inconsistent.”

The reasoning in the local citizen’s argument is flawed because this argument:

(A) Generalizes from an atypical case
 (B) Trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term “pubic interest” 
(C) Overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help
(D) Attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals
(E) Presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right to a fair trial

Waiting for OA

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Thanks  nightblade354 !

I am removing the Expert Reply request. That feature should be used to ask specific questions.

Good luck!

redskull1 · Answer

C for me.

These actions are not inconsistent because the judge might not have been the one to ask for Public Help!!

Helium · Answer

Can someone explain in detail the OA?

Posted from my mobile device

vaibhav1221 · Answer

OA hasn't been revealed yet.

AdityaHongunti · Answer

IMO B

The judge might see fit to maintain the decor for reasons such as >> peaceful trial or possible violence . The other person takes this at a moral stage

nightblade354 · Answer

Great job to everyone who participated! This is a particularly tricky question, one which I too found challenging. The OA is indeed (B). Similar to the majority who got this question wrong, I too chose (C). The key reason why (C) is wrong, among other things, is that it says that the judge MIGHT not have been a part of it. But what if she was a part of it? This would keep the argument strong, and therefore is not our answer. I was hoping for a more detailed response as to why (C) is incorrect, but kudos to urvashis09, who I deemed to have the best answer for this passage!

Here is a link to the MLSAT explanations: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t1640.html
Further LSAT explanation: https://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/inde ... ic=71294.0

If you have further questions, please ask!

Bambi2021 · Answer

Both B and C seems correct. Of course the judge was not involved in arousing public interest. This is at the core center of what is flawed in the reasoning. Its extremely hard to accept the subtlety with which LSAT makes C a trap here.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

IanStewart · Answer

I can see why C might be tempting, but it isn't a good answer here. Take a different situation: suppose someone argued "the City created more bike lanes, which discourages driving, but then added more free parking, which encourages driving. These actions are inconsistent." If I point out "it was the Transport Department that made the bike lanes, but it was the Municipal Works department that made the free parking lots", then I haven't pointed out a flaw in the argument. The two actions are still inconsistent. I've just explained why these two inconsistent things might have happened. If I want to point out a flaw in the argument, I need to show why the conclusion might not correctly follow from the premises. So in my example, if it were true that "when the public knows free parking is widely available, people drive less because they expect a lot of traffic", then adding bike lanes and adding free parking would both discourage driving, and would actually be consistent. That's the kind of information that would truly weaken the argument.

US09 above did a perfect job explaining why B is correct: if "public interest" means two different things in the citizen's argument, then the argument falls apart. It's a bit like if someone says "I have an interest in this business. I find this business uninteresting." Those statements are probably inconsistent if the person means "I have an intense curiosity about this business. I find this business boring," but they could be perfectly consistent if the person means "I have a stake in this business. I find this business boring." It all depends on what "interest" means.

US09 above did a perfect job explaining why B is correct: if "public interest" means two different things in the citizen's argument, then the argument falls apart. It's a bit like if someone says "I have an interest in this business. I find this business uninteresting." Those statements are probably inconsistent if the person means "I have an intense curiosity about this business. I find this business boring," but they could be perfectly consistent if the person means "I have a stake in this business. I find this business boring." It all depends on what "interest" means.

Bambi2021 · Answer

IanStewart

I undeniably buy your explanation, but Im quite convinced that this one citizen didnt at all consider the possibility that the judge was not involved in arousing the public interest. And he is still standing there, in the middle of a large mobb of people, screaming about what "they" did and what "they" do now. Who are "they" anyway? It's just that this citizen doesnt even care about anything that pertains to the logic of his argument. It's as far from airtight an argument could ever be and its not likely that his exploitation of two different nuances of the term "public interest" is the only flawed detail in his logic.

If some of my classmates tell me to raise my arm before speaking, and later some other classmates tell me not to raise my arm before speaking, isnt my response flawed in a sense similar to the citizen's if I say that "first  you  tell me to raise my arm, and then  you  tell me not to, could you please decide how you want it".

Anyway, we all know I didnt choose B because of the spelling mistake. You never mix up pubic and public interests. You just dont.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In a highly publicized case in Ontario, the judge barred all media

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a highly publicized case in Ontario, the judge barred all media

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards