#1 - Because the statement "all gray rabbits are rabbits" is

[kcho10]

Hi,

Why isn't E correct? The statement all gray rabbits are rabbits is valid. The statement "suspected criminals are criminals" is invalid because suspected does not mean they were actually criminals. Isn't the author assuming that both of the statements are equally valid? And if so, wouldn't a statement that weakens the validity of the second statement show a flaw in the argument?

[Claire Horan]

Be careful! Your comment would make sense if (E) said: not all suspected criminals are criminals. But look closely at (E), which states that "not all criminals are suspected." This statement has no bearing on whether all suspected criminals are criminals.

Secondly, the question stem asks why the reasoning is flawed, so you should focus on what is wrong with the process used to reach the conclusion. (C) describes the reason the rabbit analogy does not apply to the phrase "suspected criminals."

I hope this helps!

[LSATQUEEN180]

According to the stimulus, because of the first statement, statement 2 must be true:
1. all gray rabbits are rabbits
2. all suspected criminals are criminals

The flaw here is that they are trying to make the word suspected and gray mean the same thing, when in fact they are different. Looking at the answer choices: C clearly identifies the flaw.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi LSATQUEEN180,

You've got it!

Just to clarify for anyone else, the word "gray" here is describing a type of rabbit or a subcategory of rabbit.

The word "suspected" here is not describing a type or subcategory of criminal, but instead describing the level of certainty/uncertainty with regard to being criminal. It would be somewhat like stating "possible criminal."