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