Attorney: I ask you to

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite5% picked this

   aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a

   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.

   5%
2. B

   Out of Scope: Smith's testimony2% picked this

   Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud

   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%
3. C

   Correct68% picked this

   since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope: Lopez's volume1% picked this

   Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud

   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%
5. E

   Opposite24% picked this

   having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission

   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%