IMO answer is A.

Each strand in a rope may be contributing equally to the overall strength of the rope but the same cannot be told of circumstantial evidence where some may be more significant than the other in strengthening the body of evidence.

(A) and (C) could be contenders
But in (C) the word "many" is clue for excluding (C).

Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.

From ManhattanPrep

When flaw answer choices begin with "takes for granted", "presumes w/o justification", or "assumes without warrant", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is correct or not by asking yourself, "Did the author NEED to assume this?"

Basically, those three phrases turn the idea that follows into the answer to a Necessary Assumption question. So when I see "takes for granted", "presumes", etc., I evaluate the phrase that follows just like I would a Nec. Assump question, including a deep suspicion of extreme language and a willingness to apply the Negation Test.

(A) is definitely something the author needs to assume to keep his analogy intact.

The author was assuming that each strand of a rope and each piece of circumstantial evidence is roughly equally load-bearing. If we negate (A), it says "some items in a body of circumstantial evidence ARE significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body".

That would weaken the lawyer's argument. As Noah was saying before, it's possible that opposing counsel could discredit one (or more) of the most critical pieces of circumstantial evidence, thereby greatly weakening the overall body of evidence.

(A) is NOT comparing circumstantial evidence to other types of evidence.

(A) is dealing with the issue of this question: does every piece of circumstantial evidence contribute roughly equally to the overall body of evidence?

====

When a Flaw answer choice begins with "fails to consider", "neglects the possibility", "ignores the possibility", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is good by asking yourself, "if true, would this idea weaken the argument?"

So let's do that with (C).

Pretend you're answering a Weaken question for this argument and (C) says:

(C) If many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited.

Does that weaken the argument?

No. The author's conclusion is that a few items being discredited wouldn't significantly affect the strength of the overall body.

The author would probably agree with (C) ... the author thinks the more pieces that are discredited, the more the body of evidence is weakened.

When we're trying to argue with a conclusion that is essentially a conditional statement, we need to find an objection that accepts the first half but denies the second half.

So we want an objection that would say "it's possible that only a few items of a body would be discredited, and the overall body of evidence would NOT retain its basic strength."

(A) gives us this objection: if some pieces of evidence are significantly more important than others, then it's possible that discrediting a few pieces COULD do major damage to the overall body of evidence.

In terms of what these quantity words specifically mean, "a few" generally means 3 or 4.

"Many" is not a specific quantity. In most LSAT questions, we are wise to treat "many" like "some" (because we do NOT want to equate "many" with "most").

But clearly, in normal usage, "many" and "a few" are not equivalent terms, so (C) is outside the scope of the author's conclusion.

(Total tangent: "few" is not the same as "a few". If I say "a few of my friends like Green Day", then there are a handful of friends I have who like Green Day. If I say "few of my friends are zombies", it just means less than half of my friends are zombies ... it doesn't necessarily mean that I really DO have any zombie friends. "Few" = a minority, just as "most" = a majority. "Most" is compatible with "all". "Few" is compatible with "none". "A few" is NOT compatible with "none".)
_________________

Correct answer: A

A: Correct. The lawyer's argument concludes that "even if a few items" are discredited, the basic strength remains. This conclusion neglects, however, that some items may carry more weight than others, and therefore if those items are discredited the "basic strength" could be compromised.
B: Incorrect. (B) is irrelevant. If a few items are discredited, both the strength of the body of evidence and the sum of the strengths of the parts of that body would remain intact.
C: Incorrect. The argument clearly states "few"; (C) poses a counterfactual in which "many" items in the body were discredited.
D: Incorrect. The argument, in fact, establishes the similarities between the two entities (the rope, the body of circumstantial evidence) employed in the analogy.
E: Incorrect. The argument does not restate a claim but instead makes a conclusion based on the analogy established earlier on in the argument.
_________________

The author draws an analogy: a body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope... if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.

The author assumes that each piece of evidence is like a rope strand (which are all identical). But we know that all evidence is not identical. Some pieces of evidence may be crucial to the case.

(A) takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body

Correct. This is a flaw in the reasoning of the argument. The rope strands may all be of similar strength but all pieces of evidence may not be. The argument does not take this into account.

(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that body

The argument does not presume that. It says that the parts add strength to the body and one break doesn't diminish strength much.

(C) fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited

"Many items" are not discussed. We are discussing one/a few items. The problem is that even with a few items discredited, the entire body of evidence could fall. We may not even need many items to fail. The logic put forth by the argument is flawed.

(D) offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similarities

The argument does share similarities between the two. The issue is that it does not share the difference.

(E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion

It does not restate a claim.

Answer (A)
_________________

Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.

The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument