Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:22 pm
ahri wrote:preptest 26 section 2 #21
Why is b wrong?
What Choice B points out as the conclusion is not the actual conclusion that is drawn by Ziegler's attorney, but rather one of his premises: Choice B says that the attorney concludes that there is a lack of evidence to support that Ziegler was sane at the time of the shooting, only that he was sane AFTER the shooting had happened. But, the attorney's conclusion is that Ziegler was insane at the time of the shooting. The referenced lack of evidence for the time the shooting occurred is, therefore, the main premise in the attorney's argument.
In a nutshell, the attorney's argument goes like this:
There is evidence that my client was sane AFTER the shooting, but there is no evidence that he was sane AT THE TIME of the shooting. Therefore, he was insane at the time of the shooting.
Choice B is wrong for a couple of reasons: 1) it misstates the attorney's conclusion; and 2) it addresses only a premise that was used by the attorney and not an actual flaw in his reasoning, which led to the conclusion that his client was insane.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests