LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assault…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
REASONING: Ms. Lopez testified that Mr. Smith is violent. Mr. Smith never disagreed.
ANALYSIS: There are a couple of problems. First, even if Ms. Lopez is correct, we don’t have any evidence that Smith assaulted Jackson. Lots of people have violent tempers yet do not assault people.
Second, we don’t know if Ms. Lopez was telling the truth or correct that Smith generally has a violent temper. He may just have been angry with her on one occasion.
A witness isn’t obliged to refute testimony. Silence doesn’t prove guilt.
___________
- If Lopez was telling the truth, then Smith’s behavior was beyond aggressive. Shouting loud threats is pretty close to actual violence.
- The attorney didn’t mention any testimony by Smith.
- CORRECT. Lopez could simply be lying. We don’t have anyone to confirm Lopez’s testimony.
- The attorney didn’t mention whether Lopez was also loud and aggressive, or not.
- Having a violent character is definitely associated with committing violent crimes. People with a violent character are probably more likely to be violent. It’s only true that having a violent character isn’t a guarantee that any particular aggressive person will commit violent crimes.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
So for this question, would either answer choices A or E work if the word “not” was taken out? I ruled them out because more or less, the attorney is trying to argue that Smith’s aggressive behavior IS a sure indicator of a violent character and that having a violent character IS necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes.