Q10 - Television host: While it's true that the defendant pr

[aabishoor]

I can understand why (C) is correct, for the argument places the prosecutors view in high regrards and this is central to his argument. At the same time, answer choice (B) seems to also fit in quite well. The flaw in the argument could be seen as the TV host using the as evidence the very same thing which he is trying to prove against. He is using the fact that the man is on trial becasue of the prosector in order to prove that he may be guilty. This in essence does seem like a circular reasoning flaw. Any thoughts?

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that (B), which describes Circular reasoning, which is a garbage answer 98% of the time we see it, was actually tempting for once.

It felt like the author was stubbornly insisting on a pre-held belief that the defendant must be guilty.

But Circular is more than just that. It's literally presenting NOTHING to support your claim other than a restatement of the claim.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT
Conc: "i believe there must be good reason to think the defendant is at least partly guilty"

Prem: "because the defendant couldn't possibly be completely innocent in this case"

The premise has to really be an equivalent idea, in order to be circular. The only other way to present Circular is to ignore potentially disconfirming evidence.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT
Conc: "i believe there must be good reason to think the defendant is at least partly guilty"

Prem: "even though there was compelling evidence presented to exonerate the defendant, this evidence clearly must have been incorrect, since the defendant is guilty."

Our actual argument is this
Conc: "i believe there must be good reason to think the defendant is at least partly guilty"

Prem: "if there weren't good reason, the prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges in the first place"

== answer choices ==

(A) If we say that "a view = the defendant is innocent" then we can say our author concludes that view is false. Is there a lack of evidence for the defendant's innocence?

No, the host acknowledges that there is considerable exculpatory evidence.

(B) Discussed above. The premise is about the prosecutor, which is not a restatement of the conclusion.

(C) The author is definitely placing absolute faith in the prosecutor. The last sentence can be diagrammed as "if prosecutor brought charges, then there is definitely good reason to think the defendant is guilty".

It's weird that this "flaw" seems to attack the premise rather than the reasoning.

(D) This could have been usable if it read more like, "confuses legal standards for guilt with legal standards for bringing charges".

(E) It is not MERELY on the grounds of quick judgment ... the author includes a premise about the prosecutor's estimation of evidence in bringing charges.

[KayM793]

Hello, I'm still a little confused about circular reasoning here.

So our premise is "if there weren't good reason, the prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges in the first place"
the fact that the prosecutor did brought the charges mean that there is good reason.
So there is good reason.

Isn't this circular reasoning?

Thanks!

[ZIYAOW681]

Hello, I'm still a little confused about circular reasoning here.

So our premise is "if there weren't good reason, the prosecutor wouldn't have brought charges in the first place"
the fact that the prosecutor did brought the charges mean that there is good reason.
So there is good reason.

Isn't this circular reasoning?

Thanks!

Three months ago when I first got this question i chose (B) without hesitation, for circular reasoning.
But this second time I chose (C), without hesitation.

Conclusion here: good reasons exist to think the defendant is not 100% innocent

The hint that makes me to eliminate (B) this time is "to think".

Consider a Belief vs. Fact distinction. "Evidence to think this person is not 100% innocent" is not equivalent to "Evidence that proves this person is not 100% innocent".

What the TV Host wants to establish is a belief, the belief that reasons exist to think the defendant is not 100% innocent. From the premise that the prosector brought a charge, we now know for sure that the prosecutor got a criminal suspect. And what does a suspect imply? It implies the prosecutor believed that the defendant might not be 100% innocent. We then know for sure that there are some reasons to hold such a belief.

Thus the real gap here is some reasons (in the premise) vs. some good reasons (in the conclusion).

From the prosecutor's charge we can only conclude reasons exists. By assuming that those reasons are good, the TV Host is relying on the prosecutor's judgements as an authority.

[vwvvwvvwvn828]

Hi Patrick,
I wonder if the following argument is circular reasoning or not:
---"What the mayor has said is true. Otherwise, he would not have said it. "
I guess not, as it has the exact structure with the argument in the question, which is:
P1: no good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent → the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place
P2: the prosecutor charged
C: there's good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent
For the example, it's:
P1: if what the mayor said is not true → the mayor would not have said it
P2: the mayor said it
C: it's true
Am I right?