Passage Summary: Lawyers accused the government of destroying evidence; the government responded by saying that no such evidence currently exists.

Reasoning: The government asserts that no evidence exists that would support the defendant's case.

Analysis: The government's reply is logically evasive and potentially circular. If the government did indeed destroy the evidence, then their statement that 'no evidence exists' would technically be true, but it doesn't actually refute the charge of destruction. It's like someone accused of eating a cookie saying, 'There is no cookie in my hand.' Look for an evaluation that points out how the government's response fails to address the actual act of destruction and instead focuses on the current absence of evidence.