Top Law Schools

This was tough for me and I came down to A and B, but picked A.

I felt that this is what A was saying.

(A): The council members had a lack of evidence that their site would be better than his.

Therefore, his was better than their site.

He does assert that a lack of evidence showing that their site is better than his means this his better. It just seems to me, that a lack of evidence of their view....is necessarily a lack of evidence against his.

I do not see how you can separate the two.

He doesn't assert a lack of evidence against his view.

Tiago Splitter wrote:He doesn't assert a lack of evidence against his view.

He recommends the shoe factory.

The other members say that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory.

The other members have not provided evidence that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory.

He concludes that the shoe factory would be better than the courthouse.


Would (A) have been correct had it said: asserting that lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is correct


I am hung up on the "against a view"

I would say that for the members to state that the courthouse is better than the shoe factory is to necessarily be against a view. So it would be true then that the members had a lack of evidence against the view that the shoe factory was better than the courthouse.

He never once says that there is no evidence against his view. For all we know, he might be conceding that there are myriad problems with his view, but the only other alternative, the courthouse, is even worse.

The question asks about a flawed technique. The only technique he uses, at all, is to say that the other side has not provided sufficient evidence for its claim. This is the only device he uses to support his position.

Choice A would be correct if the second and third sentences said: "Some councilmembers have said that the shoe factory is not a good site, but they have not provided any evidence of this. Therefore the shoe factory is the best shelter site."