Last visit was: 01 Sep 2026, 06:11 It is currently 01 Sep 2026, 06:11
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
kingbucky
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2023
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 649
Own Kudos:
734
 [11]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews Forum Quiz
Posts: 649
Kudos: 734
 [11]
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 09 Aug 2024, 16:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
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:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (01:33) correct 57% (01:51) wrong based on 492 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.­
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
User avatar
Shashwat_hai
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2024
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 2
Kudos: 1
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 12 Aug 2024, 23:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
how B is wrong, and C seems very straight forward more like a trap
User avatar
reed990
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2024
Last visit: 23 Jul 2025
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
11
 [1]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 27
Kudos: 11
 [1]
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 13 Aug 2024, 13:00
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Shashwat_hai
how B is wrong, and C seems very straight forward more like a trap
Show more
­I agree. B seems a very sound one: putting the conclusion as the evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was guilty.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,544
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,174
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,544
 [2]
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 21 Aug 2024, 11:37
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reed990

Shashwat_hai
how B is wrong, and C seems very straight forward more like a trap
­I agree. B seems a very sound one: putting the conclusion as the evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was guilty.
Show more
­(B) does sound tempting, but it's not quite accurate.

The evidence used by the host is this: the prosecutor brought charges in the first place. According to the host, this is evidence that the defendant is not completely innocent.

So the host does not actually presuppose that the defendant is not completely innocent, and the host does not use the conclusion that the defendant is not completely innocent as evidence. Instead, the host uses the fact in bold above (the prosecutor...) as evidence that the defendant is not completely innocent. So (B) should be eliminated.

Notice that the evidence in bold is based on the prosecutor's actions -- the prosecutor brought charges, therefore the defendant must not be completely innocent.

But what if the prosecutor is simply inept? Maybe the prosecutor brought the charges for reasons that are actually unfair, unjustified, unreasonable, or whatever?

The evidence is bold is only GOOD evidence if we trust the prosecutor, and that's the problem with the host's argument: it places undue reliance on the judgments of a single authority figure (the prosecutor) If that prosecutor is misguided, then the argument falls apart.

(C) might look too straightforward, but it is in fact a straightforward description of the flaw in the argument.

I hope that helps!­
User avatar
Hazel33
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2023
Last visit: 25 Aug 2026
Posts: 11
Given Kudos: 35
Location: India
Schools: HBS '27 Yale '27 MIT '27
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q85 V84 DI77
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HBS '27 Yale '27 MIT '27
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q85 V84 DI77
Posts: 11
Kudos: 0
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 02 Sep 2024, 20:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

reed990

Shashwat_hai
how B is wrong, and C seems very straight forward more like a trap
­I agree. B seems a very sound one: putting the conclusion as the evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was guilty.
­(B) does sound tempting, but it's not quite accurate.

The evidence used by the host is this: the prosecutor brought charges in the first place. According to the host, this is evidence that the defendant is not completely innocent.

So the host does not actually presuppose that the defendant is not completely innocent, and the host does not use the conclusion that the defendant is not completely innocent as evidence. Instead, the host uses the fact in bold above (the prosecutor...) as evidence that the defendant is not completely innocent. So (B) should be eliminated.

Notice that the evidence in bold is based on the prosecutor's actions -- the prosecutor brought charges, therefore the defendant must not be completely innocent.

But what if the prosecutor is simply inept? Maybe the prosecutor brought the charges for reasons that are actually unfair, unjustified, unreasonable, or whatever?

The evidence is bold is only GOOD evidence if we trust the prosecutor, and that's the problem with the host's argument: it places undue reliance on the judgments of a single authority figure (the prosecutor) If that prosecutor is misguided, then the argument falls apart.

(C) might look too straightforward, but it is in fact a straightforward description of the flaw in the argument.

I hope that helps!­
Show more
Presuppose would mean ' assume'. In this scenario we will not be able to directly take the info/details from the main stimulus to answer the Q.

Option B would mean that there is an assumption.

I agree that­, 'the prosecutor brought charges in the first place' is definitely an evidence. But the host is assuming that the prosecutor brought charges because he thinks the 'defendant is not innocent'. Since the option (B) is mentions presuppose, I believe it refers to the aforementioned assumption which is being used an an evidence to reach to the conclusion.

Kindly clarify this doubt. I'm not very clear on why option (B) is wrong.­
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,544
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,174
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,544
 [1]
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 20 Dec 2024, 10:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
smruthilokesh
Presuppose would mean ' assume'. In this scenario we will not be able to directly take the info/details from the main stimulus to answer the Q.

Option B would mean that there is an assumption.

I agree that­, 'the prosecutor brought charges in the first place' is definitely an evidence. But the host is assuming that the prosecutor brought charges because he thinks the 'defendant is not innocent'. Since the option (B) is mentions presuppose, I believe it refers to the aforementioned assumption which is being used an an evidence to reach to the conclusion.

Kindly clarify this doubt. I'm not very clear on why option (B) is wrong.­
Show more
I'm late to the party here, but hopefully somebody reads this, someday. ;)

The host is not trying to convince us that the prosecutor brought charges because the defendant is not innocent. Instead, the host is trying to convince us that the defendant is not innocent because the prosecutor brought charges.

In other words, the evidence in the argument is the fact that charges were brought. The conclusion is that this particular defendant is not completely innocent.

The reason (B) is tempting is that there IS an underlying assumption to that argument: the prosecutor would not bring charges against a person who is completely innocent. But that's subtly different than presupposing that this particular individual is not innocent.

Choice (C) indirectly points out the flaw in that assumption: what if the prosecutor has poor judgment and DOES bring charges against people who are completely innocent? That wouldn't change the host's evidence -- the prosecutor still did bring charges against this person. But it would make it wrong to draw the host's conclusion based solely on that evidence.

In other words, if you could convince the host that the assumption (in bold above) is wrong, then that host would take back his or her conclusion. Why? Because the host wasn't ASSUMING that the defendant was innocent. Instead, the host was ASSUMING that charges aren't brought against innocent people.

Very subtle, but hopefully that helps!
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,619
Own Kudos:
1,037
Posts: 19,619
Kudos: 1,037
Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015 10 Aug 2026, 14:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
704 posts