Self-study
Lawyer: Support This witness acknowledges being present at the restaurant and watching when my client, a famous television personality, was assaulted. ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summary
The lawyer concludes that the witness’s testimony should be excluded. She supports this by saying that while the witness saw the assault, he claimed to recognize the attacker but not the lawyer’s famous client.
Missing Connection
The lawyer concludes that the witness’s testimony should be excluded, but her premises don’t say anything about when witness testimonies should be excluded. To get from her premises to her conclusion, the lawyer must assume that a witness’s testimony should be excluded if the witness claims to recognize only one party involved in an assault.
10.
The lawyer's conclusion follows logically ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
If a witness ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████
We need information about when a witness’s testimony should be excluded, not when it should be included. (A) fails to prove that the witness’s testimony should be excluded since he claimed to recognize the attacker but not the victim.
b
There are other █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████
Even if this is true, it doesn’t tell us anything about whether the witness’s testimony should be excluded. It doesn’t matter if other witnesses recognize the famous client; the lawyer is only arguing that this witness’s testimony should be excluded.
c
It is impossible ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████
The witness claims that he didn’t recognize the assailant. The fact that it’s impossible to determine if he actually recognized the assailant tells us nothing about whether his testimony should be excluded.
d
The testimony of █ ███████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████
The witness claimed to recognize the assailant but not the victim. If a witness’s testimony should only be included when that witness claims to recognize both parties in an assault, this guarantees the conclusion that the witness’s testimony should be excluded.
e
It is unlikely ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████
Even if it’s unlikely that the witness would fail to recognize the lawyer’s client, he still claimed that he didn’t recognize her. (E) fails to prove that the witness’s testimony should be excluded because he claimed not to recognize the client.