Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.
The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons thatOne of the ways to Flaw a reasoning is to introduce errors in the use of Evidence.
"Errors in the use of evindence can be of 4 kinds as per powerscore :
1)Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that the position is false
2)Treating failure to prove a claim as evidence of the denial of that claim
3)Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence that weakens the claim
4)Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove hat the position is true.
In the above stimulus, the type of reasoning used is same as (4).
Position : Mr. Smith has a violent character.
Evidence for the position : Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her.
Evidence against the position : None
Smith never refuted this testimony." that means there is Lack of evidence against the position
Hence , the argument is forcing us to believe that the positon is true, i.e. Mr. Smith has a violent character, and Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
This falls in line with option (C) : since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
Hence (C) is the right answer (A) aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character
In fact the attorney reasons the opposite way - he/she indeed say whatever Smith has done, it is a sure indicator of a violent character(B) Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive
The Attorney develops the reasoning in the argument based on Smith’s testimony. Hence Smith’s testimony cannot be unreliable as per the Attorney(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
Correct. Reason discussed above(D) Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive
In the argument, nothing is discussed about the behavior of Lopez. We don't know whether she is loud or aggressive.(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes
This is the opposite of what the Attorney is trying to convey. in fact the Attorney wants to reason that having a violent character is associated behaviors like assaulting others (like jackson in this case)
Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!