"There it is," Arthur said. "The Alternative Cause . The surplus didn't come from Sterling's genius; it came from the taxpayers' pockets. Vane’s argument only holds water if you assume Sterling was the only factor influencing the budget. The Bible teaches us to attack that assumption. When you cross-examine, ask her explicitly: 'Ms. Vane, did the surplus increase despite the Mayor's actions, or because of them?' Then introduce the tax hike. Her argument crumbles."

Thorne stood up, the file clutched tightly in his hand. He looked at the PowerScore Bible with a newfound reverence. "How much do I owe you?"

: The text includes extensive lists of "indicators" for premises and conclusions to help students quickly map out an argument's structure.

Most people came to Arthur for help with LSAT prep. Today, the man sitting across from him looked like he had a much bigger problem.

"You played into her hands. You went for an Ad Hominem attack without setting it up properly. The PowerScore Bible warns about this. In logic, you can't just attack the person; you have to show a specific reason why their testimony is flawed relative to the argument."

"Remember," Arthur said, closing the blue book. "Every argument has a conclusion and premises. If the premises don't force the conclusion to be true, the argument is flawed. Your job is to expose the gap. Ms. Vane is relying on the jury’s emotion to bridge that gap. You must use logic to blow the bridge up."