Lawyer: This witness acknowledges

Answer choices

1. A

   Negated Assumption6% picked this

   If a witness claims to recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness's

   This answer negates the RA + RC → ~WTE assumption of the argument.

   6%
2. B

   Weakens1% picked this

   There are other witnesses who can identify the lawyer's client as present

   If anything, this supports the accuracy of the witness’s testimony.

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope – Term Shift2% picked this

   It is impossible to determine whether the witness actually recognized

   There is a difference between claiming to recognize and actually recognizing the assailant. The lawyer’s argument does not rest on whether the witness actually recognized the assailant, but rather on what the witness claimed.

   2%
4. D

   Correct79% picked this

   The testimony of a witness to an assault should be included only if the witness claims to recognize both

   Why this is right

   This bridges the gap WTE → RA + RC between recognizing both parties to the assault and whether to exclude the witness’s testimony. This answer conceals it’s meaning by way of a contrapositive.

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

   79%
5. E

   Too Weak12% picked this

   It is unlikely that anyone would fail to recognize the

   This does undermine the witness’s testimony, but is too weak to complete invalidate. Nor does it offer any justification for the lawyer’s conclusion that the witness’s testimony should be excluded.

   12%