Self-study
Attorneys for a criminal defendant charged that the government, in a coverup, had destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant in a case. ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
This is an usual stimulus because there’s no argument. Instead, we have a claim and a reply to that claim.
Attorneys’ claim: The government destroyed evidence that would have supported the defendant.
Government’s reply: There is presently no evidence that supports the defendant.
Notable Assumptions
There are no assumptions, because there’s no argument here. But notice that the government’s reply doesn’t actually address the point made by the attorneys. The attorneys’ point is that there was once supporting evidence, before it was destroyed. But the government’s response is all about the present situation—there’s now no supporting evidence. This leaves open the possibility that the attorneys are right: the government destroyed the evidence, which is why it no longer exists.
Analysis by AlbertGauthier
5.
Which one of the following ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████
a
It leaves open ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████████
b
It establishes that ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████████
c
It shows that ███ █████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ █████
d
It demonstrates the ████████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████
e
If true, it ███████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████