Passage Summary: A lawyer says a man is definitely guilty of an assault because he's a mean person who once threatened someone else and didn't deny it in court.

Conclusion: The jury should find Mr. Smith guilty of the assault on Mr. Jackson.

Reasoning: Although there are no witnesses, Mr. Smith has a violent character as shown by a previous unrefuted threat he made against someone else.

Analysis: The attorney is making a 'propensity' argument, which is a major no-no in both logic and law; just because someone is a 'jerk' doesn't mean they committed a specific crime. It's the legal equivalent of saying 'he looks like the type,' which is hardly a substitute for evidence of the act itself. Furthermore, the attorney incorrectly treats the defendant's silence as a confession of guilt. Look for an answer that identifies the error of inferring a specific action from a general character trait.