LSAT Explanation PT 26, S2, Q21: Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of Ziegler's attorney? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The attorney is arguing that Ziegler was insane at the time he fired the shot. The attorney's premise is that the accusers have submitted no evidence that Ziegler was sane at the time he pulled the trigger, only that he was sane some time after he did so. The attorney concludes that, based on this premise, the only reasonable conclusion is that Ziegler was insane at the time of the shooting.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: No evidence of Ziegler's sanity at the time of the shooting, only evidence of sanity after the shooting.

Conclusion: Ziegler was insane at the time of the shooting.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is the lack of evidence for Ziegler's sanity at the time of the shooting enough to conclude that he was insane at that time?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices. Remember, this is a Flaw question, so we are looking for the answer choice that most accurately describes a flaw in the attorney's reasoning.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument doesn't mention anything about being a well-educated professional being relevant to guilt or innocence. This choice is not related to the actual flaw in the argument.

b) This answer choice is incorrect because it misrepresents the argument. The argument doesn't conclude on the basis of evidence against Ziegler's being sane; rather, it concludes based on the lack of evidence for Ziegler's sanity at the time of the shooting. The argument is not about evidence against Ziegler's sanity.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because it is not relevant to the attorney's argument. The attorney's argument is focused on Ziegler's sanity at the time of the shooting, not during his consulting work.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because it is not relevant to the attorney's argument. The argument is about Ziegler's sanity at the time of the shooting, not about whether sanity is relevant to moral responsibility for actions.

e) This is the correct answer choice. The flaw in the attorney's reasoning is that they fail to consider the possibility that Ziegler's being sane after the shooting could be an indication that he was sane at the time of the shooting. The attorney concludes that Ziegler was insane at the time of the shooting based solely on the lack of evidence for his sanity at that time, without considering the possibility that the evidence of his sanity after the shooting could be relevant.

In summary, the correct answer is E because it accurately describes the flaw in the attorney's reasoning: failing to consider the possibility that Ziegler's sanity after the shooting could be an indication of his sanity at the time of the shooting. The other answer choices are incorrect because they either misrepresent the argument or are not relevant to the attorney's argument.