lsat-6-2-5题

5. The museum's night security guard-maintains that the thieves who stole the portrait did not enter the museum at any point at or above ground level. Therefore, the thieves must have gained access to the museum from below ground level.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

(A) The rules stipulate the participants in the contest be judged on both form and accuracy. The eventual winner was judged highest in neither category , so there must be a third criterion that judges were free to invoke.

(B) The store's competitors claim that the store in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made any profit nor broke even. Consequently, the store's customers must have been able to buy shirts there at less than the store's cost.

(C) If the census is to be believed, the percentage of men who are married is higher than the percentage of women who are married. Thus, the census must show a higher number of men than of women overall.

(D) The product label establishes that this insecticide is safe for both humans and pet. Therefore, the insecticide must also be safe for such wild mammals as deer and rabbits.

(E) As had generally been expected, not all questionnaires were sent in by the official deadline. It follows that plans must have been made for the processing of questionnaires received late.

原文犯的是什么错误？

原文的逻辑错误在于：从人的证词（甚至是有利益冲突CONFLICT OF INTEREST的人：security guard和competitors都有利益冲突）得出一个肯定性的结论。在法律上，这个人的证词的证明力实际要受到质疑的，特别是他有CONFLICT OF INTEREST时，比如他是否偷懒（睡觉啦），是否失职等等，从而削弱他的证词的证明力，导致结论的不肯定，所以单靠人证是无法得出肯定性结论的，除非有其他证据辅助或排出其它可能性。B也一样是这种推理错误。这个店的competors这麽说的动机是什麽？说的话是否可信？都要受到质疑。在没有被CHALLENGE前是不能得出肯定性结论的。
实际这题是典型的法律思维错误。