Q7 - Attorney: I ask you to find

[peg_city]

Shouldn't the fallacy be that the attorney attempts to prove Mr. Smith guilt by showing an example of his violent character?

Just because he had a violent past doesn't mean that he committed the crime.

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

Shouldn't the fallacy be that the attorney attempts to prove Mr. Smith guilt by showing an example of his violent character?

Yes!

Just because he had a violent past doesn't mean that he committed the crime.

Not quite!

We don't know that Mr. Smith had a violent past. What the author meant by "violent character" was illustrated after the colon (colons are used to introduce examples). Namely, that Mr. Smith did not refute her claim that he shouted at and threatened her.

So, in the language you used, this is how I would state the flaw:
Just because he didn't deny her claim doesn't mean that her claim is true.

This one turns out to be the correct answer (C), however there are several others you may notice at the beginning. For example, just because he threatened her doesn't mean he assaulted her. If we went to the choices looking for this one, we wouldn't find it, and we'd have to reconsider. Eventually, either we'd consider (C) and validate it, or we'd see it in the argument and then recognize (C).

(A) eliminate! In fact, the author seems to believe exactly the opposite.

(B) eliminate! Nowhere does the author suggest that Mr. Smith's testimony is unreliable.

(C) bingo!

(D) eliminate! Clearly, the author believes her testimony to be reliable, but not for this reason.

(E) eliminate! Again, the author seems to actually believe the opposite: violent character = committed the crime.

Do you see?

[WaltGrace1983]

I am confused by this one. I don't see how proving anything about what Ms. Lopez says about Mr. Smith threatening her has anything to do with Mr. Smith assaulting Mr. Jackson. Clearly (C) is the best answer but it just seems very weak and I am wondering if I am missing something here.

This is basically how I read the argument:

"You gotta find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson! There was this one time that he threatened Ms. Lopez and Mr. Smith didn't deny it!"

I mean...c'mon LSAT.

[tommywallach]

Brian already addressed your complaint, sir. It's not the best flaw here, but it's the one in the answer choices! : )

-t

[Davykarkason]

I know it s late to post but for those who are looking for explanations like me. Please read the question even if you know that is a flaw question. The questions states " the attorney s argument is fallacious because it REASONS THAT"

This is tricky although you could state many flaws in this question you re looking for a structural flaw instead of pointing OUT the flaw. You re just stating what is the author saying and add the missing assumption and connect it with the conclusion. Some may disagree but I would classify this as an assumption question on how to deal with it as you re trying to fill in the gap between the conclusion and the premises. Most likely necessary assumption. That s why C works because if you negate C it will become like this " since smith have disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did not in fact threaten her" which affects the conclusion of him having a violent character and called into question the testimony


READ THE QUESTION CAREFULLY YOU RE NOT LOOKING TO STATE THE FLAW BUT RATHER FIND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ARGUMENT

[NichP73]

I know it s late to post but for those who are looking for explanations like me. Please read the question even if you know that is a flaw question. The questions states " the attorney s argument is fallacious because it REASONS THAT"




READ THE QUESTION CAREFULLY YOU RE NOT LOOKING TO STATE THE FLAW BUT RATHER FIND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ARGUMENT

Thanks this is exactly the mistake I made, and one of the little things that I can try to use to improve my score in the future.