LR Problem Set #4, Q: 346

[moshei24]

Only in the LSAT world would the attorney's argument be fallacious, right? It's not a real life fallacy, just an LSAT one, correct? (In real life, Smith not claiming that his opponent was lying would make it an assumption that he actually did what he was accused of doing, right?)

Thanks!

(Sorry that this questions is a little off base - it just bugged me a little bit that the LSAT would use a case that wouldn't be fallacious in the circumstances it's in and use it as a fallacious case on the LSAT.)

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, I've seen quite a few LSAT LR questions with attorneys making bad arguments! While politicians and advertisements are the most common "easy targets" for our authors to pick on, lawyers get their fair share of abuse, too.

That said, the attorney's argument is fallacious either in real life or on the LSAT. Nobody is required to refute testimony against them - in fact, nobody can be compelled to testify in their own defense. Attorneys are generally not allowed to argue that a failure to refute is an admission of truth, and juries are generally admonished not to make that assumption. But, that's a question for you to explore in law school, not now - first we have to get you there!

Adam

[moshei24]

Thank you!