[求助]lsat-28-2-21

hoechst

21. Attorney for Ziegler: My client continued to do consulting work between the time of his arrest for attempted murder and the start of this trial. But I contend that Ziegler was insane at the time that he fired the shot. This is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that the accusers have submitted no evidence that he was sane at the time he pulled the trigger, only that he was sane some time after he did so.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of Ziegler's attorney?
(A) It presumes that being a well-educated professional is relevant to being guilty or innocent.
(B) It concludes on the basis of evidence against Ziegler's being sane that there is a lack of evidence for Ziegler's being sane.
(C) It fails to consider that Ziegler might have been insane when he worked as a consultant.
(D) It presumes that whether one is sane is relevant to whether one is morally responsible for one's actions.
(E) It fails to consider the possibility that Ziegler's being sane after the shooting is an indication that he was sane at the time of the shooting.
答案为E, 请问B为什么不对, 我对b 的理解是因为没有证据证明sane 而得出结论insane

mindfree

B is not correct in that attorney for Ziegler did not present any evident against Ziegler's being sane. So the first half of the sentence is wrong.

E is the only one that can be right. The others can be eliminated.