Plaintiff: "If the prisoner is guilty, then he had an accomplice."
Solicitor: "That's not true!"
...
The statement of plaintiff is a lie only if the hypothesis (or antecedent) is true and conclusion (or consequent) is not true.
I think you need to look up the definition of "lie". A lie is when you communicate (what you believe are) false facts as though they are true.
They might _actually_ be true, but you believe they are false. The key feature is that you are trying to make your listener believe something that (you think) is false.
If you are making an incorrect (or untrue, or false, etc.) statement from incompetence, that is not a lie - it is just incorrect. This is most likely the case in the Plaintiff's statement. He asserts that guilt requires an accomplice, regardless of circumstances (circumstances were not considered relevant to this problem, so they cannot be part of that equation). Such a statement is logically absurd. Thus, the Plaintiff has apparently uttered a non sequitur.
Had this been a practical (i.e., real life) scenario, the context of that statement would have been crucially important. For example, if the crime involved lifting an object too heavy for one man, we would understand the statement to mean "if the suspect committed the crime, he must have had an accomplice to help lift".
In such a case, the Defense could logically argue that is not true, as anyone with a forklift, a pulley system, or a lever could have managed the feat alone.
The Plaintiff's statement has absolutely no bearing on the suspect's guilt, and declaring it true or false likewise has absolutely no bearing on the suspect's guilt.
This is another poorly designed logic problem.
This topic is locked
