LSAT Explanation PT 35, S4, Q7: Attorney: I ask you to find

LSAT Question Stem

The attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The attorney's conclusion is that Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. The attorney provides two premises to support this conclusion: 1) Mr. Smith has a violent character, as evidenced by Ms. Lopez's testimony that he threatened her, and 2) Mr. Smith never refuted this testimony. The argument's structure is as follows:

Premise 1: Mr. Smith has a violent character (Ms. Lopez's testimony).

Premise 2: Mr. Smith never refuted Ms. Lopez's testimony.

Conclusion: Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there any direct evidence linking Mr. Smith to the assault of Mr. Jackson?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and answer choices. The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the fallacy in the attorney's argument.

a) The argument does not reason that aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character. In fact, the attorney uses Mr. Smith's aggressive behavior (Ms. Lopez's testimony) to support the claim that he has a violent character. This answer choice is incorrect.

b) The argument does not mention anything about Mr. Smith's testimony or its reliability. The focus is on Ms. Lopez's testimony and Mr. Smith's failure to refute it. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) Correct answer. The attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that since Mr. Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Ms. Lopez, he did, in fact, threaten her. This is a flaw in the argument because failing to disprove a claim does not automatically mean the claim is true.

d) The argument does not discuss the reliability of Ms. Lopez's testimony based on her being neither loud nor aggressive. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) The argument does not reason that having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes. In fact, the attorney uses Mr. Smith's violent character as evidence to support the claim that he is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. This answer choice is incorrect.

In summary, the correct answer is C because the attorney's argument is fallacious in reasoning that since Mr. Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Ms. Lopez, he did, in fact, threaten her.