LSAT Question Stem

The prosecutor's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it overlooks which one of the following possibilities? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's begin by analyzing the argument in the passage. The prosecutor is trying to prove that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification of the perpetrator. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Dr. Yuge testified that if the robbery occurred after 1:50 A.M., it would have been too dark for Klein to recognize the perpetrator due to the moon setting at 1:45 A.M.

Premise 2: Dr. Yuge acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set.

Premise 3: The robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30 A.M.

Conclusion: There was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Were there any factors that could have interfered with the moon's light during the robbery?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and answer choices. This is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the possibility that the prosecutor's reasoning overlooks.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the passage states that the robbery's time has been conclusively shown to be between 1:15 and 1:30 A.M., which is before the moon set. Klein's potential mistake about the time of the robbery is irrelevant.

b) This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn't address the argument's focus on the amount of light available for Klein to make a reliable identification. The resemblance of the perpetrator to another person is unrelated to the light conditions.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn't challenge the conclusion that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification. Rather, it introduces a separate factor (Klein's emotional state) that could affect his ability to make a reliable identification, which is not the focus of the argument.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because it focuses on Dr. Yuge's knowledge of the light conditions, whereas the conclusion is about the availability of enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification. Dr. Yuge's presence at the scene is not relevant to the argument.

e) This is the correct answer. It points out a possibility that the prosecutor's reasoning overlooks: that the moon's light may have been interfered with by conditions such as cloud cover. This directly challenges the conclusion that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification, as it suggests that even with a full moon, the light conditions could have been compromised.

In summary, the correct answer is E because it directly challenges the conclusion by pointing out a possibility that the prosecutor's reasoning overlooks, which is the potential interference of the moon's light by conditions such as cloud cover.