#4 - Detective: Bill has been accused of committing the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

The detective in this stimulus makes the logical flawed presumption that there was no occurrence based on the fact that there were no witnesses. Obviously if Bill were sly he might have been able to slip by witnesses, or maybe no one was around to witness. Regardless, it is not valid to assume that Bill is innocent based on the lack of witnesses.

Only correct answer choice (D) reflects this flaw—the confused “detective” acts as though the lack of witness exonerates Bill.

[jcough346]

I was between C and D and chose C incorrectly. It seemed like a fairly valid answer to me.

-James

[Adam Tyson]

I have to ask, James - what do you like about answer C here? Our Detective is arguing that Bill did not commit the robbery. His evidence is that Bill wasn't seen in the area. The flaw is that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Answer C says that the Detective's error is in failing to provide additional evidence that Bill DID do the deed, but why would he need to do that when he is arguing that Bill DIDN'T do it? Maybe you misread that answer and thought it was that he didn't offer any additional evidence that Bill didn't do it? That would be a good answer, very similar to the correct answer here, because it would be the same as saying "you need some actual evidence, not just a lack of opposing evidence".

Check that answer again and see if maybe it was just a misreading. If that's not it, please come back and make a case for answer C so that we can get a better idea of where you are coming from and maybe give you a more helpful response.

Thanks, James, and keep at it!