Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardDetermining Statement Roles

The argument below is presented by a scholar of legal ethics. For each statement excerpted from the passage, identify its exact logical role in the author's reasoning.

Scholar of legal ethics: While some critics contend that the rigid application of attorney-client privilege in corporate fraud cases harms the public interest, this perspective is fundamentally flawed. Maintaining strict privilege actually serves the broader public interest by preventing future legal infractions. Without an absolute guarantee of confidentiality, corporate executives would routinely withhold potentially incriminating information from their legal counsel. If executives withhold such information, attorneys are severely handicapped in their ability to proactively guide corporations toward lawful compliance.

  • "...some critics contend that the rigid application of attorney-client privilege in corporate fraud cases harms the public interest..."A viewpoint that the argument is primarily designed to discredit
  • "Maintaining strict privilege actually serves the broader public interest by preventing future legal infractions."The main conclusion of the ethicist's argument
  • "Without an absolute guarantee of confidentiality, corporate executives would routinely withhold potentially incriminating information from their legal counsel."A basic premise offered directly in support of a subsidiary conclusion
  • "...attorneys are severely handicapped in their ability to proactively guide corporations toward lawful compliance."An intermediate conclusion that functions as evidence for the main conclusion

Answer

The statements map logically as follows: The critics' argument is the viewpoint to be discredited; the claim that privilege serves the public interest is the main conclusion; executives withholding information is a basic premise; and attorneys being handicapped is the intermediate conclusion.
In this argument, the author introduces an opposing view ('critics contend...') in order to refute it. The author's main conclusion is that 'Maintaining strict privilege actually serves the broader public interest.' To support this, the author offers a chain of reasoning: without confidentiality, executives withhold info (basic premise); therefore, attorneys are handicapped in guiding compliance (intermediate conclusion). This intermediate conclusion ultimately shows why the main conclusion is true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the passage to identify the main conclusion and the author's primary stance.
The author explicitly rejects the critics' view and asserts that maintaining strict privilege serves the broader public interest. This is the main conclusion.
Identifying the main conclusion anchors the structural analysis of the rest of the argument.
2
Determine the role of the first excerpt regarding the critics' argument.
It represents an opposing viewpoint that the ethicist introduces solely to reject it as 'fundamentally flawed'.
Understanding what the author is arguing against clarifies the purpose of the surrounding context.
3
Analyze the logical relationship between the final two sentences.
The statement about executives withholding information acts as a condition that triggers the subsequent claim: attorneys would be handicapped.
Recognizing the causal link identifies which statement is the foundational premise and which is the supported sub-conclusion.
4
Determine the structural role of the claim that attorneys would be handicapped.
Because it is supported by a premise but in turn supports the main conclusion (that privilege serves the public interest by preventing infractions), it functions as an intermediate conclusion.
A claim that is both a conclusion of one premise and a premise for another is an intermediate conclusion.

Key Concept

Determining Statement Roles in complex arguments by tracking structural indicators and logical dependencies.
Rate this question

Topics

Determining Statement Roles

More questions from this topic