1278 wrote:Hi Experts,
PT65 S4 Q5:
I felt very "WTF" when seeing this question. B is kind of obvious; but although it supports the conclusion, it makes 95% of the entire argument (codefendants/shared counsel/blabla) not necessary. Is this considered "strongly supporting" the argument? should I be prepared for a similar TMI stimulus on Monday??
Also, what do the experts think about the RC section in PT65?
But (B) doesn't obviate the rest of the argument - it states the strong version of the judge's assumption.
She's saying she can't allow defendants to be questioned without codefendant counsel present. Why not? Because two of them have the same lawyer.
But why does that matter? Why not just leave the attorney out of the room? Because she's assumed that she can't/shouldn't kick the defendant's own lawyer out for some reason.
If (B) is true, it strongly asserts that assumption, and makes it certain that the judge cannot grant the request. This is straight classic Sufficient Assumption, and you're certainly going to see another question like it on Monday. Good news - you can totally handle it.
That blackmail passage was a bitch. But, as you noted, nothing on 64 was that bad for you - so take your lesson about managing the clock, and head into Monday ready to take on whatever they throw at you. Relax, breathe deeply, and do what you know how to do.
I'd wish you luck, but luck is for sissies. You don't need it.