Passage Summary: A defense lawyer argues that because the other side hasn't proven his client was sane during the crime, the client must have been insane.

Conclusion: Ziegler was definitely insane at the moment he fired the weapon.

Reasoning: The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence proving he was sane at the time of the shooting, only evidence of his sanity at a later time.

Analysis: The attorney is falling into the 'appeal to ignorance' trap, which is a favorite of LSAT question writers. He is essentially saying that because a claim (sanity) hasn't been proven true, the opposite claim (insanity) must be true. In the real world and on the LSAT, a lack of evidence for 'X' is not the same thing as positive evidence for 'not X.' You should look for an answer choice that identifies this failure to distinguish between a lack of proof and a proof of the opposite.