PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 21
Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued to do(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIt presumes that(11 more words not shown)
- BIt concludes on(19 more words not shown)
- CIt fails to(13 more words not shown)
- DIt presumes that(15 more words not shown)
- EIt fails to(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not establishing that Ziegler was sane doesn't establish that he was insane.
The attorney wants us to accept insanity as the only reasonable conclusion. But even if the accusers haven't established Ziegler's condition at the moment of the shooting, why can't the answer be that we don't yet know? A gap in what has been shown isn't automatically proof of the opposite. Not ruling out unicorns on Mars wouldn't establish that unicorns are there.
The opening detail about his continuing consulting work initially makes me wonder what the attorney is trying to prove. Work after an arrest wouldn't by itself tell us whether someone committed the alleged act. But the argument turns out to focus on Ziegler's mental condition at the time, not whether he fired the shot.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd expect an answer about treating a lack of evidence for sanity as proof of insanity. We need to read carefully: an answer can use all those same terms and still describe a different argument.
Working the answers
- A
The attorney doesn't say that Ziegler's education or professional status establishes guilt or innocence. The conclusion is specifically that he was insane when he fired. Continuing to work appears in the background, but A supplies a different basis and a different conclusion from the ones the attorney uses.
- B
This sounds close to my prediction, so check the direction. B says the attorney starts with evidence against sanity and concludes there is a lack of evidence for sanity. The attorney instead points to the claimed lack of evidence about sanity at the time and concludes that Ziegler was insane.
Those aren't interchangeable descriptions. A tempting answer about evidence still has to identify what is being used as support and what is being concluded. B puts those pieces in the wrong places.
- C
Whether Ziegler might have been insane while consulting doesn't expose the central mistake. The attorney wants to separate his condition after the shooting from his condition during it. Questioning whether he was even sane afterward wouldn't explain why the absence of evidence about the earlier moment makes insanity the only reasonable conclusion.
- D
The attorney isn't drawing a conclusion about moral responsibility. That might be an important issue elsewhere in the case, but it isn't the conclusion of this argument. We shouldn't substitute a broader debate about responsibility for the particular claim about Ziegler's condition when he fired.
- ECorrect
The later evidence might tell us something about the earlier condition. The attorney treats evidence of sanity after the shooting as though it could provide no indication of sanity during the shooting. That dismissal needs justification.
This is a more specific objection than my initial prediction. Evidence needn't establish a fact with certainty to bear on it. Later sanity might be a clue about earlier sanity, even if it doesn't settle the question. E doesn't claim that consulting work proves anything about a person's mental health; it challenges the attorney's treatment of the later evidence as irrelevant to the earlier moment.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.