LSAT Explanation PT 26, S2, Q23: In a certain municipality, a judge

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The judge's argument can be broken down as follows:

1. The suspect fled from the police (Premise)

2. Flight from the police, by itself, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act (Premise)

3. Evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible (Premise)

4. The evidence in this case was inadmissible (Conclusion)

The gap in this argument is between premises 2 and 3. We need to connect the idea that there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act with the idea that the chase was illegal. To make this connection, we need a principle that links these concepts.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is a chase considered illegal if there is no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices. Remember, this is a Principle question, so we are looking for a principle that helps justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible.

a) This answer choice only strengthens the premise that flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. It doesn't address the gap between no reasonable suspicion and the illegality of the chase. So, it doesn't help justify the judge's decision.

b) This answer choice talks about when people can legally flee from the police, which is not the focus of the argument. The argument is about the legality of the police chase, not the legality of fleeing. Thus, this answer choice does not help justify the judge's decision.

c) Correct. This principle states that police can legally give chase to a person only when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. This connects the lack of reasonable suspicion (from premise 2) with the illegality of the chase (from premise 3), thus helping to justify the judge's decision.

d) Although this answer choice states that flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act, it doesn't connect the lack of reasonable suspicion with the illegality of the chase. Therefore, it doesn't help justify the judge's decision.

e) This answer choice is a reversal of what we want. It talks about when police can legally give chase when there is reasonable suspicion, but the argument is about the lack of reasonable suspicion. Thus, it doesn't help justify the judge's decision.

In conclusion, the correct answer is C, as it provides a principle that connects the lack of reasonable suspicion with the illegality of the chase, helping to justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible.