October 2001 LSAT Section 4 Question 7

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses t...

devon on November 29, 2022

Explanation

The explanation for this question is mostly great and helpful in elucidating the correct answer and why it is correct. However it misdescribes the stimulus: premises (2) states “The victim claims” which seems to refer to Mr. Jackson.

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

devon on November 29, 2022

Also, the question explanation neglects another problem with the attorney’s argument; namely, that guilt of assault is used as evidence of violent character. Further, setting aside the evidence-against fallacy, violent character is still not properly justified insofar as its relationship to shouting threats is not explicitly established.

Emil-Kunkin on December 8, 2022

Hi, flawed arguments like this are often flawed for more than one reason. That said, the argument doesn't wrongly assume that guilt of assault is used as proof of violent character, in fact, it argues the other way around. I do agree that shouting threats does not prove violent character.

I think the victim could refer to either Lopez or smith. One of assault, other of threats.