Self-study
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████████████ █████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ █████████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ████████
Summarize Argument
The judge concludes that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ lawyers present. She supports this by saying that two of the three codefendants share the same lawyer, and the court won't require any of them to get a new lawyer.
Notable Assumptions
We’re looking for a principle that supports the judge’s key assumption. She assumes that when a defendant is questioned, that defendant’s own lawyer can be present. Since two defendants share a lawyer, their own lawyer is also representing their codefendant. So, assuming that the defendant’s own lawyer can be present, when the plaintiff questions each of these two defendants, their shared laywer—who always represents a codefendant in addition to the questioned defendant—can be present. This makes the plaintiff's request impossible to grant.
5.
The conclusion of the judge's ████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████
a
A court cannot █████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ █ ███████
Irrelevant. This may be true, but it doesn’t support the assumption that a defendant’s own lawyer can be present during questioning. The principle described in (A) has nothing to do with why the plaintiff’s request cannot be granted.
b
Defendants have the █████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████████
If defendants have the right to have their lawyer present during questioning, the plaintiff can't be permitted to question a defendant without their codefendant’s lawyer being there, since two codefendants share a lawyer.
c
People being questioned ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████████████
Irrelevant. This may be true, but it has nothing to do with whether defendants’ lawyers can be present during questioning. Whether the defendants refuse to answer certain questions doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s request.
d
A plaintiff in █ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████████
Even if this is true, it doesn't affect the plaintiff’s request. The plaintiff is being denied his request to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ lawyers present. But the defendants never made this request, nor were they denied this right.
e
A defendant's legal ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████
Irrelevant. The plaintiff is making a request about questioning the defendants. The defendants’ lawyers never requested to question the plaintiff. (E) doesn’t support the assumption that a defendant’s own lawyer can be present during that defendant’s questioning.