Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. The Attorney never claims that Ziegler is a well-educated professional—just that he did some consulting work.

Incorrect. So tempting! This answer does describe an Absence of Evidence flaw, but it gets the details wrong. This answer says that the argument is based on a premise ("basis of evidence that") suggesting that Ziegler isn't sane ("against Ziegler's being sane"). However, the premise is that there's no evidence he was sane. The conclusion is also that Ziegler was insane, not that there is evidence he is sane, as this answer states. Watch out for tricky Errors in Reasoning answers that describe a flaw present in the argument while getting the details wrong!

Incorrect. The Attorney concedes that the accusers have submitted evidence that he was sane after the crime—that Ziegler did consulting work. However, she concedes only that there's evidence he was sane then, not that he was definitely sane, so this answer is off.

Incorrect. The stimulus never discusses moral responsibility, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Conclusion - Ziegler was insane when he fired a shot
Why? - There's been no evidence he was sane at the time, just that he might have been sane some time after it (when he was consulting)

Answer Anticipation:
When we're dealing with Errors in Reasoning questions, we want to speed up our process by identifying key elements that are associated with specific flaws. Here, there are two.

The first is that the argument cites a lack of evidence ("no evidence") for an opposing point to prove the opposite point. Here, the accusers claim Ziegler was sane when he shot, but they haven't introduced any evidence that's true, and so the Attorney concludes that it's false. That's an Absence of Evidence flaw.

The second is that there's a timeline element here. The Attorney talks about two points in time—the point of the crime, and the time after. The Attorney concedes that Ziegler could have been "sane some time" after the crime, witnessed by his consulting work. However, she treats this as "no evidence" that he was sane at the time of the crime. While we can't say that being sane after the crime proves Ziegler was sane during the crime, we also can't say that they're unrelated. It's possible that sanity doesn't just flip on and off like that!

Either of these flaws could serve as the basis for a correct answer, so let's stay open to both of them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the second error in reasoning that we identified. The Attorney states that the accusers have offered "no evidence" that Ziegler was sane when he shot, just evidence that he was sane later. That assumes there's no connection between being sane at a later date and being sane during the crime. While we can't assume there is one, we also can't assume that there isn't.

Key Takeaway:
On harder Errors in Reasoning questions, there will frequently be two flaws. On some of the hardest Errors in Reasoning questions, both of those flaws will have answers hinting at them. As with all Errors in Reasoning questions, we need an answer that correctly describes the argument, so always be on the lookout for details that don't match up with the stimulus.