Quote:
Originally Posted by beemerbird
No where in the statement does it say that it was youths who caused the damage, nor does it state that it wasn't youths who caused the damage, therefore inconclusive and no assumption should be drawn.
Yes, Stuart Brown is a youth (but could still be a groundsman, member whatever) by the fact given in the statement, but that alone shouldn't be a presumption of guilt/innocence combined with the above, so again impossible to tell.
Based on the above it would be easy to say 'B' as the statement is false in it's basic form. The whole statement is so inherently flawed providing very little information and indeed facts that to commit to a definitive answer imo is difficult if not impossible.
I believe the statement about Stuart Brown is intentionally thrown in as a 'curve ball' to great effect.
|
Actually, the statement "Stuart Brown may have been one of the youths causing the damage."
does say the youths caused the damage; the last four words. No evidence, however, supports this contention. If you think otherwise, please cite.
How can a statement be inherently flawed if it is the statement that is being examined for whether it is true or false? Answer the question about the statement itself. Don't read into it anything else. Given the known facts, is that statement, as worded, true or false?