Attorney for Ziegler: My client

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Assumed0% picked this

   It presumes that being a well-educated professional is relevant to being

   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%
2. B

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match37% picked this

   It concludes on the basis of evidence against Ziegler’s being sane that there is a lack of evidence

   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%
3. C

   Not an Objection4% picked this

   It fails to consider that Ziegler might have been insane when he worked

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope: morally responsible1% picked this

   It presumes that whether one is sane is relevant to whether one is 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%
5. E

   Correct57% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that Ziegler’s being sane after the shooting is an indication that he was sane at

   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%