LSAT CR Test 28 - #21

Expert replies

iwill: 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 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

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:31 am

grockit_andrea: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 357; Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pmFollowed by: 7 members; Thanked: 128 times

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

scoobydooby: Legendary Member; Posts: 1035; Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 104 times

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.

enniguy: 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?

iwill: 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)

joseph32: 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

atrayee345: 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.

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review