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

[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

[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

[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!

[Dave Killoran]

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 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!

[blade21cn]

Can someone explain why (D) is wrong? I'm down to (D) and (E) and thought both have to do with the conclusion of whether there was enough light for Klein to make reliable identification and neither disputes the premise. (D) looks more general to me - Since Dr. Yuge only acknowledged that the moon would provide considerable light, in general, we wouldn't know (1) whether that considerable light would be sufficient for identification purposes, and (2) whether the light would be sufficient in this particular scenario, due to a variety of possible intervening factors. Since Dr. Yuge was not present, he wouldn't know the specifics of the situation, e.g., darkness due to the fact that the perpetrator was in the shadow, no matter how bright the moonlight was. (E) merely identifies a specific possibility of (2) that considerable light in general does not equal sufficient light in this scenario - cloud. Would appreciate for any input.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Blade21cn!

Focus on the conclusion here. The conclusion is simply that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification, it's not whether or not Dr. Yuge is correct in his analysis. And, in fact, Dr. Yuge never actually says there was sufficient light for a reliable identification...he just says "the moon was full enough to provide considerable light." Whether or not Dr. Yuge has any way of really knowing whether the light was sufficient makes little difference to this conclusion. If, however, the moon's light was interfered with by cloud cover, that would definitely impact whether or not there was enough light to make an identification. So answer choice (E) is the best answer here.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ashpine17]

What is incorrect about A? Is it because the prosecutor has conclusively shown that the incident happened in that specific time frame? Is B incorrect because the argument is about whether there was enough lighting and not whether Yuge actually identified the perp?

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

I don't see any indication of Klein's belief about what time the robbery may have occurred. "We" have conclusively shown it occurred at a certain time. I have no idea what Klein believes about any of that, so I don't know how Klein could be "mistaken" about an opinion not expressed and not relevant to the argument.

Answer choice (B) looks totally irrelevant. Imagine it's true. The perpetrator resembles another person, somewhere in the world. What would that do? Nothing to the argument, for sure!

Robert Carroll