- Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:10 pm
Evidence for, evidence against, lack of evidence for, lack of evidence against
You have to decompress what the answer choice was saying (and the wordiness), that's where the challenge was here.
Before arrest, lack of evidence he was sane (lawyer concludes he was insane)
After arrest, evidence he was sane (lawyer says he was sane)
So basically, he's trying to get at the fact that his client is innocent because he was crazy when he pulled the trigger, but he's normal now (as the opposition's evidence shows)... in trying to prove that there's no contradictions within the case, only missing evidence that supports his client's argument.
eliminate A, C, D because they are irrelevant
you're down to choices B and E
B says:there's evidence he wasn't sane (evidence he was insane), therefore no evidence for sane
E says: argument didn't eliminate the possibility that being sane after shooting may prove he was sane during shooting
B is wrong because there was NO evidence he was sane before, and there is evidence he was sane after. It doesn't say anywhere he was not sane.