Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S4 · Q7 Attorney: I ask you to

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: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.

Conclusion

Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.

Intermediate Conclusion (colon)

Mr. Smith has a violent character.

Evidence

Ms. Lopez said that Mr. Smith shouted loudly and threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Evaluate

Since this argument involves two conclusions, we need to examine both reasoning moves.

Given that ... Ms. L says that Mr. S shouted loudly at her, threatening her, while Mr. S never refuted this, Should we accept that ... Mr. S has a violent character?

Of course not. First of all, one instance is not enough from which to draw a conclusion about character. We all have some days where we're very snippy and short with people because of other stresses going on in our lives. So maybe Mr. Smith shouted threateningly at Ms. Lopez because he was in a terrible mood that day or badly stressed by something, but this out of character for him.

Moreover, the fact that Smith never refuted the testimony isn't an admission of guilt. I don't think Hillary Clinton ever refuted the Pizzagate allegations (there was a conspiracy theory that she was running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor, back in 2016). Sometimes people don't respond to what they consider groundless accusations: "I won't even dignify that with a response". That doesn't count as an admission of guilt. The 5th amendment protects a witness's right to stay silent.

If we accepted that ... Mr. S has a violent character, Should we accept that ... Mr. S assaulted Mr. Jackson?

Of course not. There are probably hundreds of NFL players with violent characters. Does that mean that they all assaulted Mr. Jackson? We would clearly need more evidence.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining about the move from "He threatened me / never refuted it" to "He has a violent character", or an answer complaining about the move from "He has a violent character" to "He assaulted Mr. Jackson".

7.

The attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that

  1. aggressive behavior is not a

    Opposite

    The author is thinking that aggressive behavior (shouting threateningly) is an indicator of violent character. This answer is saying the author assumes that aggressive behavior sometimes is not an indicator of violent character.

    6% picked this

  2. Smith’s testimony is unreliable since

    Out of Scope: Smith's testimony

    We haven't heard anything about Smith's testimony. We know he didn't offer testimony to refute Ms. Lopez's accusations of shouting at her, but that's it. So we have no idea whether the author is assuming that Smith's testimony is reliable or unreliable.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    since Smith never disproved the

    Why this is right

    The author does seem to be acting this way. She is arguing, "If Ms. L says he shouted threateningly at her and Mr. S never refuted (i.e. disproved) this claim, then he did threaten her, which sows she has a violent character." This is sort of a variation of the Famous Flaw Unproven vs. Proven False. The author is thinking, "Since Mr. Smith didn't prove he didn't threaten her, then we can conclude that he did threaten her." If you're mad at this answer, you're not crazy. It is a weird one. It might help to think about the distinction between disputing testimony and refuting testimony. It's possible that Mr. Smith disputed Ms. Lopez's account and said, "that's not true; I didn't threaten her." This lawyer may have said, "Can you prove you didn't threaten her?" And Mr. Smith wouldn't have that sort of evidence since it was just a He Said / She Said situation: two different accounts of the same event. It would be fair to say that Smith was unable to disprove Lopez's testimony, but that doesn't mean we should believe Lopez. (She probably can't prove her testimony is right, so it's a similar sense of taking someone's word for it). Ultimately, i order to understand what the test writers were going for, you kind of have to "hear" this stimulus as part of a courtroom drama, where the attorney thinks that saying "Smith never refuted this testimony" somehow counts as evidence in favor of the testimony being true.

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

    68% picked this

  4. Lopez’s testimony is reliable since

    Out of Scope: Lopez's volume

    The attorney would certainly be assuming that Lopez's testimony is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be based on the idea that she is not loud and not aggressive. We don't have any text to support the idea that she's not loud or aggressive, so we can't accuse the author of making that reasoning move.

    1% picked this

  5. having a violent character is

    Opposite

    The author is thinking that violent character is associated with the commission of violent crimes, because her evidence for the accusation that Mr. Smith committed the violent crime of assaulting Mr. Jackson is merely the idea that Mr. Smith has a violent character.

    24% 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