Guys,
How to approach this question..
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect's conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase. The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect's flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible?
(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.
(E) In all cases in which a person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person
OA : C
Thanks,
V
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
LSAT CR Test 28 #23
This topic has expert replies
-
brad@knewton
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:58 pm
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 7 times
Many GMAT students use LSAT questions to help them study for Critical Reasoning, while there are some benefits to this (good, cheap questions, and practice reading difficult, test-like language) there are some detriments as well. For one, there are question types that appear on the LSAT which do not appear all that frequently on the GMAT (this principle question is a good example of such a question). Second, the degrees of logic are slightly different on the LSAT. Meaning, sometimes acceptable GMAT inferences and deductions would be unacceptable on the LSAT. Finally, formal logic (like conditional statements) appears much more frequently.
That being said, let's take a look at this question.
The judge's reasoning is laid out pretty clearly for us here: The only cause for the police to chase the suspect in this instance was the suspect's flight. Flight itself does not establish reasonable suspicion. Any evidence collected without reasonable suspicion is inadmissible. Thus, the evidence in this case must be considered inadmissible.
Notice the judge calls the chase an "illegal chase", this designation provides the basis for (C) as the correct answer.
With principle questions, we're asked to identify a general rule (or principle) that guides the author's reasoning. In other words, which answer seems to be the philosophy upon which the conclusion is reached.
(C) is correct here because the judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there was no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement.
My sense is most students would struggle with (D) on this one. The problem with (D) is that it includes the word "should". Which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police.
(A) introduces "other factors" which are outside the scope of the argument.
(B) also introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; in this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean he police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument. Thus (B) is outside the scope.
(E) confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). (E) makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase. Whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.
Apologies for the long explanation, but there are some elements of formal logic here that aren't as heavily tested on the GMAT as they are on the LSAT.
That being said, let's take a look at this question.
The judge's reasoning is laid out pretty clearly for us here: The only cause for the police to chase the suspect in this instance was the suspect's flight. Flight itself does not establish reasonable suspicion. Any evidence collected without reasonable suspicion is inadmissible. Thus, the evidence in this case must be considered inadmissible.
Notice the judge calls the chase an "illegal chase", this designation provides the basis for (C) as the correct answer.
With principle questions, we're asked to identify a general rule (or principle) that guides the author's reasoning. In other words, which answer seems to be the philosophy upon which the conclusion is reached.
(C) is correct here because the judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there was no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement.
My sense is most students would struggle with (D) on this one. The problem with (D) is that it includes the word "should". Which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police.
(A) introduces "other factors" which are outside the scope of the argument.
(B) also introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; in this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean he police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument. Thus (B) is outside the scope.
(E) confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). (E) makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase. Whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.
Apologies for the long explanation, but there are some elements of formal logic here that aren't as heavily tested on the GMAT as they are on the LSAT.
-
brad@knewton
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:58 pm
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 7 times
All that explaining and I forgot to include my favourite part of this question:
This isn't actually TRUE: federal law and most state precedent consider flight from police as sufficient in establishing reasonable suspicion. Yet another example of how truth and validity are separate ideas on the GMAT (and LSAT). You cannot answer questions based on what you believe to be true in everyday life, rather you must consider the validity of the arguments presented.
This isn't actually TRUE: federal law and most state precedent consider flight from police as sufficient in establishing reasonable suspicion. Yet another example of how truth and validity are separate ideas on the GMAT (and LSAT). You cannot answer questions based on what you believe to be true in everyday life, rather you must consider the validity of the arguments presented.
-
atrayee345
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:58 am
A. This statement doesn't justify judge's decision. It rather opposes the decision by stating that a flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion under certain circumstances which are not made clear in the statement.
B. This statement introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; In this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean the police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument.
C. The judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there were no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement. Hence, C is the answer.
D. This statement includes the word "should" which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police.
E. This statement confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). It makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.
B. This statement introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; In this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean the police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument.
C. The judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there were no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement. Hence, C is the answer.
D. This statement includes the word "should" which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police.
E. This statement confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). It makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.
