Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015

Question

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.

Shashwat_hai · Answer

how B is wrong, and C seems very straight forward more like a trap

reed990 · Answer

I agree. B seems a very sound one: putting the conclusion as the evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was guilty.

GMATNinja · Answer

(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!

smruthilokesh · Answer

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.

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015

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

Television host: While its true that the defendant | LSAT 75 | 2015

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