Self-study
Lawyer: Support A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the overall body of circumstantial evidence will retain its overall strength, even if a few items of evidence are discredited. This is based on an analogy to rope. Just as a rope is made up of individual strands, a body of circumstantial evidence is made up of individual pieces of evidence. Adding strands strengthens the rope, just as adding evidence strengthens the body of evidence. In addition, if one strand breaks, the rope retains its overall strength.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that circumstantial evidence and a rope are not similar in how they are impacted by loss of an individual part. It’s possible that losing some evidence can affect the overall body’s strength significantly, even if losing a strand or two doesn’t affect the rope’s overall strength much.
17.
The reasoning in the lawyer's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes for granted ████ ██ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████
If there were some items of evidence that were much more important to the overall strength, then losing even just a few of these items might reduce the overall strength significantly. So the author must assume that there’s no items that are much more important than the others.
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████
The author assumes the opposite — that the strength of a body of evidence is more than the sum of the individual strengths of items in that body. This is why the author thinks losing a few items won’t affect the overall strength.
c
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███████████
The author’s conclusion concerns what happens if “a few” items of evidence are discredited. This doesn’t imply any belief about what happens is “many” items are discredited. “Many” means a lot — “a few” doesn’t necessarily encompass “many.”
d
offers an analogy ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████████
The author does indicate that the two things compared are similar. Just as adding strands to a rope strengthens the rope, adding items of evidence strengthens the body of evidence.
e
draws a conclusion ████ ██████ ████████ █ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████
(E) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion is not a restatement of any of the premises. The conclusion concerns what happens if a few items of evidence are discredited; none of the premises refer to this situation.