Page 1 of 1

#14 - Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:45 pm
by Sherry001
Hello,
I had so much trouble understanding why c is wrong. I get why E is correct but I see C as equally right.
Here's how I approached this question :

1- Dr yang has testified that the robbery occurred before moon set. ( there was enough light).
2- it has been proven that that robbery occurred before the moon set.
C: there was enough light for Kevin to make a reliable identification .

My thoughts before jumping in were something like this: okay well just because we have a testimony of a Dr doesn't mean the author has the right to make such a big jump in stating that Kevin had made reliable identification. What if Kevin couldn't see well at night ? Or wasn't paying attention?

C) I liked this because it went with my prephrase of something else that may have prevented him from seeing regardless of the amount of light.

E) same reason as why I liked c.

Thanks so much for your help
Sherry

Re: PT29(1)Q14

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:42 pm
by Anthony Esposito
Hi Sherry,

I like your question. I'm glad that you see that Answer Choice (E) is certainly our correct answer for this weaken question.

Remember, in weakening questions we are attacking the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is "So there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification." That's exactly what Answer Choice (E) attacks. However, Answer Choice (C) does not attack whether or not there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable ID. Instead, it focuses on some other thing (tears, emotion, ?) that would have prevented the reliable ID.

Since Answer Choice (E) better attacks the conclusion, that's the one to go with.

Hope this helps,
Anthony

Re: #14 - Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:48 pm
by lsatdaily
Hello,

As I was reading Anthony's explanation, I just want to be sure about the question type. I thought this question was flaw question, not weaken. Can someone possibly clarify?

Thank you in advance!

Re: #14 - Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:57 pm
by Dave Killoran
lsatdaily wrote:Hello,

As I was reading Anthony's explanation, I just want to be sure about the question type. I thought this question was flaw question, not weaken. Can someone possibly clarify?

Thank you in advance!


First, the good news here is that to read it either way (Weaken or Flaw) doesn't hurt you since you can still do the question :-D Second, we call this a Weaken question because “overlooks this possibility” is always about an option or pathway overlooked vs a description of a structural flaw in the argument. So, whereas a Flaw would say "the author failed failed to consider a possible objection" or something similar, these questions actually state the thing that was forgotten. In that sense, they are closer to Weaken than Flaw.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!