#10 - Television host: While it’s true that the defendant

[Administrator]

Question #10: Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

The fact that this stimulus is preceded by “Television host” is a solid clue that not only is an argument on its way, but also that some form of reasoning error is likely to be present. Ditto for stimuli prefaced with such notoriously dubious origins as, “Advertisement,” “Administrator,” “Letter to the editor,” and perhaps most of all, “Politician.”

In this case, the TV host seems swayed to suspicion (indeed to near-conviction) by the mere fact that a prosecutor chose to bring charges against a defendant, despite numerous elements attesting to the defendant’s innocence: a strong alibi, considerable exculpatory (exonerating/absolving) evidence, and the jury’s acquittal.

The flaw then appears to be that the TV host is basing his or her opinion not on evidence, but solely on the reliability of the prosecutor’s judgment and motives. Categorically we call that an Appeal to Authority, where the actions or beliefs of someone in a position of presumed expertise are trusted implicitly regardless of, or even in spite of, the available evidence.

Answer choice (A): This is an excellent description of the flaw in the prior question’s stimulus, but it fails for question #10. Here there is plentiful evidence—an alibi and, explicitly, “exculpatory evidence”—so “lack of evidence” is wholly inaccurate.

Answer choice (B): describes what is known as a Circular Argument, where an author restates the thing he or she is trying to prove in order to support that very thing. “Team X is the best team...because Team X is better than everyone else.” It’s a restatement, pure and simple. Unfortunately for (B) there is no such restatement in this stimulus, so this answer can be quickly eliminated.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As anticipated, the correct answer outlines a perfect description of an Appeal to Authority flaw: undue reliance on an authority figure’s judgments (the prosecutor’s questionable judgment in this case).

Answer choice (D): The TV host does suggest that the defendant may not be “completely innocent” in the case, however no distinction is made about the nature of that partial guilt, legal or moral or otherwise.

Answer choice (E): Once again, we have an answer using actual words from the stimulus but in an intentionally misleading way. That is, the jury did reach an acquittal quickly, and the TV host is somewhat skeptical of the defendant’s innocence, but that skepticism is based not on the speed of acquittal but on the prosecutor’s actions.

[deck1134]

Why is this not an example of circular reasoning?

"The prosecutor would not have brought charges" (doesn't this mean he is probably guilty) so "there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not complete innocent" (he is probably guilty).

How is this not circular?

[Adam Tyson]

True circular reasoning exists, deck1134, when no evidence is presented other than either a restatement of the conclusion or, sometimes, completely irrelevant evidence (though the latter is more likely to be described as being based on irrelevant evidence than on circular reasoning). "He is probably guilty because it is unlikely that he is innocent" would be that sort of reasoning.

Here, though, we have actual evidence, in the form of "the prosecutor brought charges." While that certainly isn't GOOD evidence in a system where innocence is to be presumed and prosecutors are flawed human beings like the rest of us, it is still presented as relevant evidence, and therefore the argument isn't truly circular.

I hope that brings you around!

[goingslow]

Hi there!

I still have some problems eliminating (B). The premise is, "Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place."

If we diagram it as a conditional statement, that'd be innocent ~charge

But the prosecutor did press charges. So we got ~innocent. We also got ~innocent in the conclusion.

What's wrong with my line of reasoning? Thank you so much!

[Adam Tyson]

I'll refer you back to my earlier response in this thread, goingslow, because answer B is describing circular reasoning. That only exists when the author gives us no evidence other than a restatement of the conclusion.

This author isn't presupposing (assuming) that the defendant is not completely innocent. They are basing that conclusion on certain evidence: that they were charged by the prosecutor. It's not "I know this person isn't innocent, so therefore they cannot be completely innocent," which is what answer B describes. It's "charges were brought against them, therefore they cannot be completely innocent," which is a terrible argument, but which is still based on at least one premise and not just an assumption.

[fortunateking]

Hi Adam,
In regard to circular reasoning, the stimulus reminds me of a famous quote: "What the mayor has said is true. Otherwise, he would not have said it." This quote has generally been used as an illustration of circular reasoning. I wonder what makes the argument in this question different since they seem to have the exact same structure:
"What the mayor has said is true. Otherwise, he would not have said it."
"The defendant can not be innocent. Otherwise, the authority would not have brought up the case."

[Jeremy Press]

Hi fortunateking,

Your "mayor" example is a good example of circular reasoning, but the reason it's not the same as the argument in the stimulus is because the conclusion in the stimulus introduces a "new character," the defendant, who is a different person than the prosecutor. In true circular reasoning, the conclusion is a literal restatement of the premise (or of the fundamental premise/assumption) of the argument. So, in your mayor example, there is literal restatement because both parts of the argument are referring to the mayor. But in the stimulus, there is not literal restatement because the defendant is a different person than the prosecutor. Always look for that literal restatement when choosing the circular reasoning answer!