LSAT PrepTest 19 Section 24 Question 5 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This Logical Reasoning question is from the June 1996 LSAT.

In the stimulus, the prosecution never says there never WAS any evidence supporting the defendant. It simply says there IS no evidence supporting the defendant.

The problem: this is consistent with the defense's argument. If the government destroyed all exculpatory evidence, there would be no such evidence remaining. As such, the government's response doesn't address the defense's allegations. It leaves open the question of government destruction of evidence.

For this reason, Choice A is correct.

Because it only uses the present tense, and because we do not even know if the government's reply is accurate, we cannot conclude that B, C, or D are correct.

And even if the reply were true, because it is only referring to the present tense, we cannot conclude that Choice E is correct. Again, even if there IS no longer any exculpatory evidence, this does not mean that there wasn't before, or that the government did not destroy it.

Remember:

Whenever possible, try to pre-phrase the correct answer before looking at the answer choices. If you do this, it'll be much easier to spot the right answer, and you'll be much less likely to be confused or distracted by ambiguous answer choices.

Again, fully understanding the stimulus is essential.