LSAT Explanation PT 43, S3, Q18: In a highly publicized kidnapping case

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the local citizen's argument is flawed because this argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's break down the argument in the passage. The judge in a kidnapping case barred all media and spectators from the courtroom, arguing that the public interest would not be served by allowing them. A local citizen criticizes this decision, claiming that the authorities previously involved the public in the case by asking for their help and arousing their interest, and now they are denying the public's right to attend the trial. The citizen concludes that these actions are inconsistent.

In this argument, the premise is that the authorities involved the public in the case by asking for their help and arousing their interest, and the conclusion is that the actions of the judge are inconsistent.

Now, let's consider an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Does the term 'public interest' have the same meaning in both instances it is used in the argument?"

The question type for this problem is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the reasoning of the local citizen's argument.

Now, let's go through each of the answer choices:

a) Generalizing from an atypical case: This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not involve any generalization from an atypical case. There is no evidence to suggest that this case is unusual or different from others.

b) Trading on an ambiguity with respect to the term "public interest": This is the correct answer choice. The local citizen's argument uses the term "public interest" in two different ways: first, as the public's awareness or fascination with the case, and second, as what is best for the public. This ambiguity makes the argument flawed, as it allows the citizen to claim inconsistency in the judge's actions when there might not be any.

c) Overlooking the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help: While this is a weakness in the argument, it is not the main flaw. The argument's main flaw is related to the ambiguity of the term "public interest," as explained in answer choice (b).

d) Attempting to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals: This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not involve any sensationalistic appeals or grossly overstating the potential consequences of the judge's actions.

e) Presuming that the public's right to know is obviously more important than the defendant's right to a fair trial: This answer choice is also incorrect because the argument does not explicitly state or assume that the public's right to know is more important than the defendant's right to a fair trial. The main flaw lies in the ambiguity of the term "public interest."

In conclusion, the correct answer is (b) because the local citizen's argument is flawed due to trading on an ambiguity with respect to the term "public interest."