Subscription pricing
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 █████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ █ ███████
b
Defendants have the █████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████████
c
People being questioned ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████████████
d
A plaintiff in █ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████████
e
A defendant's legal ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████