Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q21 Attorney for Ziegler: My client

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued to do consulting work between the time of his arrest for attempted murder and the start of this trial.

Conclusion (only reasonable conclusion)

Ziegler was insane at the time he fired the shot.

Evidence (from the fact that)

The accusers have submitted no evidence that he was sane at the time he pulled the trigger, only that he was sane some time after he did so.

Evaluate

Given that .. there's only evidence that Z was sane after the shooting, not during the shooting.

How can we argue that ... Z was not insane at the time he fired the shot (i.e. he was sane)?

Well, what is the evidence he was that we was insane? Z's attorney hasn't presented any evidence to support the contention that Z was insane at the time of the shooting.

The fact that we don't have evidence Z was sane at the time of the shooting is not therefore evidence that Z was insane. After all, that would work in reverse too. The fact that Z's attorney has provided no evidence that Z was insane at the time of the shooting would, by the same logic, be evidence that Z was sane.

A lack of evidence for X does not prove or even necessarily suggest that X is false.

To think this way is to commit one of the 10 famous flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False.

Goal

Look for an answer naming the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, or one complaining that Z's attorney has presented no evidence that Z was insane at the time of the shooting, or any other objection we could make that would help us argue that Z was sane at the time of the shooting.

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of Ziegler's attorney?

  1. It presumes that being a

    Not Assumed

    Did this argument need to assume anything about being a "well-educated professional"? No, that idea is totally out of scope. They're wanting us to think "did consulting work = well-educated professional", but who says you have to be well-educated to do consulting work? Even if accepted that doing consulting work means you're a well-educated professional, this answer would still be wrong. The prosecution isn't arguing that being a well-educated professional is relevant to being deemed guilty or innocent, just that it's relevant to being deemed sane on insane.

    0% picked this

  2. It concludes on the basis

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match

    This heavily resembles the language of Unproven vs. Proven False, but they've jumbled the wording. Any time we see a Flaw answer choice structured like concludes on the basis of X that Y we would ask ourselves, "Does X match the evidence? Does Y match the conclusion?" Was there a premise that matches "evidence against Z being sane"? No, the opposite. In the evidence we hear that there was evidence presented in favor of Z being sane after the time of the shooting. We could stop there and eliminate, but if we kept reading, is the Conclusion saying "There is a lack of evidence for Z being sane?" Not quite. The conclusion is "Z was not sane at the time of the shooting".

    37% picked this

  3. It fails to consider that

    Not an Objection

    Any time we see a Flaw answer choice phrased fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "(assuming they never addressed this), would it weaken if true?" Would it hurt the author's argument if we said that Z was insane when he worked as a consultant? No, that would actually help the author, who is trying to argue that Z was insane at the time of the shooting.

    4% picked this

  4. It presumes that whether one

    Out of Scope: morally responsible

    This argument is only dealing with whether or not Z was insane at the time of the shooting. Our outside knowledge + the courtroom context might make us think where we'd go next if we found out Z was insane at the time of the shooting (more lenient sentencing?) But this argument ends at whether or not Z was sane or insane at the time of the shooting. Whether he is morally responsible in either of those situations is beyond the purview of this argument. We would also naturally be cautious about picking this answer, since in real life this is such a reasonable assumption (whether you're sane / insane is typically thought to be relevant to whether you're morally responsible), that it would be unlike LSAT to find this assumption objectionable or worthy of criticism.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    It fails to consider the

    Why this is right

    Any time we see a Flaw answer choice phrased fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "(assuming they never addressed this), would it weaken if true?" Would it hurt the author's argument if we said that Z's being sane after the shooting indicates that Z was also sane at the time of the shooting? Definitely! That directly attacks the validity of this author's conclusion. This answer is sort of weird angle on the Unproven vs. Proven False. We knew to be mad that this attorney had never presented any evidence to support the notion that Z was insane at the time of the shooting. But it's even more shameful to present no evidence given that there is acknowledged evidence that Z was sane after the shooting. What this answer is expressing is the idea that, "Given that we know Z was sane after the shooting, our default position is that Z has always been sane. The onus is really on Z's attorney to talk us out of that default position, if she wants to contend that Z was insane at the time of the shooting." It's a pretty unreasonable demand to prove minute by minute that someone is sane. If they were sane two days ago and are sane now, then that probably indicates that they were sane yesterday. Anyone saying otherwise, needs to give us a reason why we shouldn't just be assuming constant sanity.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    57% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free