s*******1
发帖数: 135 | 1 Attoeney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson.
Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a
violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shounting
loudly, had threatened her.Smith never refuted this testimony.
The attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that
A. aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent charecter.
B. Smith's testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive.
C. Since Smith ne | g*****e
发帖数: 16 | 2 C is correct.
E is incorrect, because the lawyer argues that violent character is
necessarily associated with violent crime. Quite opposite to E. | j***g
发帖数: 51 | 3 if you say C is the answer, I'd think in this way:
the conclusion of the argument is 'Mr. Smith has a violent character'
alway focus on the conclusion, so C is right.
if you think 'I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson.
' means that the conlusion is 'Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson
', then E should be right.
but maybe that sentence is only introducing the background here? anyway, I think E is very attractive. so let's see how other people think... | D**********s
发帖数: 320 | 4 C is definitely the best answer.
E is incorrect because the attorney does not claim that Mr. Smith committed
the assault. In fact, he admits that there was no direct evidence. He is
trying to persuade the jury to convict him based on his violent character.
The factual basis for his violent character is that he threatened Ms. Lopez.
The attorney claims that this is established because HE DID NOT REFUTE THE
ALLEGATION. Unless failure to refute equals admission, his reasoning is
wrong.
in
【在 s*******1 的大作中提到】
: Attoeney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson.
: Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a
: violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shounting
: loudly, had threatened her.Smith never refuted this testimony.
: The attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that
: A. aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent charecter.
: B. Smith's testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive.
: C. Since Smith ne
| D**********s
发帖数: 320 | 5 Actually, I think the exact conclusion should be Mr. Smith did threaten Ms.
Lopez because he did not refute her allegation.
It's OK to convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. It's also OK
to infer a violent character based on one's conduct. These are not strict
logical conclusions, but are very common in practice.
But it's not OK to infer admission based only on failure to refute.
.
Jachson
think E is very attractive. so let's see how other people think...
【在 j***g 的大作中提到】
: if you say C is the answer, I'd think in this way:
: the conclusion of the argument is 'Mr. Smith has a violent character'
: alway focus on the conclusion, so C is right.
: if you think 'I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson.
: ' means that the conlusion is 'Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jachson
: ', then E should be right.
: but maybe that sentence is only introducing the background here? anyway, I think E is very attractive. so let's see how other people think...
| s*******1
发帖数: 135 | 6 Thanks, guys. I am so grateful. The question equaled to ask attorney's
assumption. |
|
