Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The role that played the bias of the media in the success of Lincoln was the way the media and the journalists covered the famous debates of these two candidates for the Senate of the state of Illinois.
During the second half of 1858, Stephen Douglass and Abraham Lincoln confronted in a series of debates. Douglass was a famous politician and the media constantly covered his activities. In that time, Douglass was in the midst of a controversial issue due to the Lecompton Constitution. He also had other controversial issues with northerners after the Kansas Nebraska Act. The way the media covered the news biased the information and the way people view these series of debates between Douglass and Lincoln.
I’m pretty sure it’s India
