BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

LSAT CR Test 28 - #21

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:590

LSAT CR Test 28 - #21

by iwill » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:31 am
Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued to do consulting work between the time of his arrest for attempted murder and the start of this trial. But I contend that Ziegler was insane at the time that he fired the shot. This is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that the accusers have submitted no evidence that he was sane at the time he pulled the trigger, only that he was sane some time after he did so.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of Ziegler's attorney?
(A) It presumes that being a well-educated professional is relevant to being guilty or innocent.
(B) It concludes on the basis of evidence against Ziegler's being sane that there is a lack of evidence for Ziegler's being sane.
(C) It fails to consider that Ziegler might have been insane when he worked as a consultant.
(D) It presumes that whether one is sane is relevant to whether one is morally responsible for one's actions.
(E) It fails to consider the possibility that Ziegler's being sane after the shooting is an indication that he was sane at the time of the shooting

OA : E
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:42 am
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
That is to say, the flaw in the attorney's reasoning is that he assumes that the prosecution's failure to present evidence of the defendant's sanity at the time of the act indicates that the defendant WASN'T sane at that time. That's a common flaw. The attorney neglects the possibility that the evidence presented regarding a time later than the shooting is relevant to a determination of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. So, the answer is E.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:49 am
A, C and D are out of scope

B; out as the attorney doesnt conclude that there is no evidence of Z's being sane

E: correct as evidence of Z's being sane after the shootout doesnt mean that Z was insane at the time of the shootout.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:41 am
Thanked: 8 times

Please explain?

by enniguy » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:14 pm
grockit_andrea wrote:"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
That is to say, the flaw in the attorney's reasoning is that he assumes that the prosecution's failure to present evidence of the defendant's sanity at the time of the act indicates that the defendant WASN'T sane at that time. That's a common flaw. The attorney neglects the possibility that the evidence presented regarding a time later than the shooting is relevant to a determination of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. So, the answer is E.
I understand the quote but I did not understand how it is relevant to Option E. I did not understand how Option B is wrong as well. Could you please elaborate?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:590

by iwill » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:17 pm
thanks guys!

It's something like - GOD doesn't exists, because there is no proof that GOD exists.

I feel, E is the only option left if we use POE.
A,C,D are junk.
B - NO evidence has given that Ziegler was insane. (evidence AGAINST Ziegler being sane)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 9:31 pm
I'd say E but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:58 am

by atrayee345 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:13 am
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
That is to say, the flaw in the attorney's reasoning is that he assumes that the prosecution's failure to present evidence of the defendant's sanity at the time of the act indicates that the defendant wasn't sane at that time. That's a common flaw. The attorney neglects the possibility that the evidence presented regarding a time later than the shooting is relevant to a determination of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. Hence, E is the answer.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1