PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 7
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith(37 more words not shown)
The attorney's argument is fallacious(4 more words not shown)
- Aaggressive behavior is(8 more words not shown)
- BSmith's testimony is(7 more words not shown)
- Csince Smith never(13 more words not shown)
- DLopez's testimony is(8 more words not shown)
- Ehaving a violent(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A violent person isn't automatically guilty of this particular assault. We still need evidence connecting Smith to what happened to Jackson.
The attorney instead points to Lopez's testimony that Smith threatened her. That raises two questions. First, why should we take that allegation as established merely because Smith never refuted it? Maybe he didn't have an opportunity to respond. Not disproving an accusation isn't the same as admitting it or proving it true.
Second, even if the threat to Lopez happened, Lopez isn't Jackson. Evidence about Smith's behavior toward one person doesn't establish that he assaulted another. The attorney needs to connect those separate events rather than let a claim about character do all the work.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the attorney incorrectly reasons. Either gap is worth considering, but we need an answer describing a move the attorney makes. A statement of something the attorney should have considered could be a good objection without completing that particular question stem.
Working the answers
- A
This sounds like an objection to using aggressive conduct as proof of violent character. But the attorney doesn't reason that aggression is not a sure indicator of that character. The attorney uses the alleged threat to support the character claim. A gives a reservation the attorney doesn't express, rather than identifying the attorney's mistaken inference.
- B
We aren't given an argument rejecting Smith's testimony because he is loud and aggressive. Saying he never refuted Lopez's account doesn't tell us that he gave testimony and the attorney dismissed it as unreliable. B introduces a treatment of his testimony that we haven't been shown.
- CCorrect
The attorney uses Smith's failure to refute Lopez as a reason to treat her allegation as true. But perhaps Smith had no chance to respond, or chose not to address it. Neither possibility establishes that he made the threat.
Imagine accusing someone of a theft and then declaring the accusation true because they haven't disproved it. The missing disproof isn't evidence that establishes the theft. Here, the same move concerns the alleged threat to Lopez. It is one flaw in the argument even though there is also a further gap between threatening Lopez and assaulting Jackson.
- D
The passage doesn't describe Lopez as quiet or nonaggressive, and the attorney doesn't base her credibility on those qualities. We need the reasoning actually used to accept her testimony. The stated point is that Smith never refuted it, which is what C addresses.
- E
This gives a reservation about linking violent character to violent crimes. It resembles our second concern, but the attorney doesn't reason that the connection is uncertain. The attorney relies on the character claim to seek a conviction. E is a possible challenge to that move, not a description of the mistaken reasoning the attorney uses.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.