Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard out

Question

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard outside the courtroom, so we cannot be sure what she said. Afterward, however, she publicly affirmed her belief in Pemberton’s guilt. Hence, since the jury found Pemberton not guilty, we can conclude that not all of the jury members believed Tagowa’s testimony.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the columnist’s reasoning?

(A) It overlooks that a witness may think that a defendant is guilty even though that witness’s testimony in no way implicates the defendant.

(B) It confuses facts about what certain people believe with facts about what ought to be the case.

(C) It presumes, without providing warrant, that juries find defendants guilty only if those defendants committed the crimes with which they are charged.

(D) It presumes, without providing warrant, that a jury’s finding a defendant not guilty is evidence of dishonesty on the part of someone who testified against the defendant.

(E) It fails to consider that jury members sometimes disagree with each other about the significance of a particular person’s testimony.

sivatx2 · Answer

A) It overlooks that a witness may think that a defendant is guilty even though that witness’s testimony in no way implicates the defendant. 
 Based on the argument provided, this is the correct flaw that the columnist misses in the reasoning. Witness may have a belief/opinion which may be different(inaccurate) from the actual evidence recorded by the juries.
Hence A is the answer choice.

(B) It confuses facts about what certain people believe with facts about what ought to be the case. 
 There is no information on what is the case all about and hence it is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

(C) It presumes, without providing warrant, that juries find defendants guilty only if those defendants committed the crimes with which they are charged. 
 Columnist did not mention, in the argument, that the juries presumed. Eliminate

(D) It presumes, without providing warrant, that a jury’s finding a defendant not guilty is evidence of dishonesty on the part of someone who testified against the defendant. 
 Columnist did not mention, in the argument, that the juries presumed. Evidence of dishonesty is not discussed in the argument. Eliminate

(E) It fails to consider that jury members sometimes disagree with each other about the significance of a particular person’s testimony. 
 There is nothing mentioned in the argument, whether juries had to be unanimous or not, in their judgement. Out of scope. Eliminate

winterschool · Answer

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard outside the courtroom, so we cannot be sure what she said. Afterward, however, she publicly affirmed her belief in Pemberton’s guilt. Hence, since the jury found Pemberton not guilty, we can conclude that not all of the jury members believed Tagowa’s testimony.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the columnist’s reasoning?

C & D not true; E support argument
Between A & B

In A - it talks about Tagowa’s think, but conclusion is related with jury members believe. argument is not say that Tagowa’s testimony is not true.

In B - it related with conclusion. argument accept that Pemberton not guilty so some jury not believed Tagowa’s testimony. argument ignores that all jury could believed Tagowa’s testimony but that was not enough to prove Pemberton guilty

possible answer

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Huh? Can’t witnesses say one thing inside the courtroom, and another thing outside the courtroom? The columnist admits that she doesn’t know what Tagowa said in the courtroom, and then goes on to say, “Jurors must not have believed Tagowa.” Big, unjustified assumption here: How the hell do you know that Tagowa didn’t tell a different story on the witness stand?

A) This isn’t written very clearly, but it’s exactly what we predicted. “In no way implicates” means “does not implicate” means “didn’t drop the dime.” So this answer choice points out the giant flaw we were looking for: Just because a witness says, outside of court, that she thinks a defendant is guilty does not mean that the witness, inside court, actually testified against the defendant. Looks perfect.

B) The argument never claims anything about what anybody “ought” to think.

C) The argument never claims that anyone found guilty actually committed the crime.

D) Close, but backward. The argument assumes that Tagowa was  honest , not dishonest.

E) This is simply beside the point. It’s true that the argument “fails to consider” arguments between jurors over the significance of some witnesses vs. the significance of other witnesses, but who gives a ****? Every argument “fails to recognize” a lot of irrelevant matters… you can’t talk about  everything  in  every  single argument. This would be a lot better answer if it simply said, “Fails to consider that the jury might believe a witness who thinks the accused is guilty, but still find the accused not guilty.”  That  would be relevant here. But arguments between jurors is too specific, and too much of a stretch.

Our answer is A, because it matches the big flaw we predicted.

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.

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard out

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

Columnist: Tagowa’s testimony in the Pemberton trial was not heard out

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