Takes for granted vs Overlooks the fact (Flaw question)

[gplaya123]

LSAT Gurus... I need your advice.

I am going to specifically use
Prep 35 Section 4 LR #7 the attorney question as an example to illustrate my point.

Due to copyright problem, here is the core of the argument:
Mr. S has a violent character.
According to Mrs. L, Mr.S has threatened Mrs. L and Mr. S never denied this.
---
Therefore, Mr. S has assaulted her.

There were a couple of things I noticed with this argument:
1) Having a violent character doesn't necessarily lead to assaulting
2) The argument has committed the absence of evidence fallacy. Never denying something does not necessarily mean that it's in fact true.

Flaw 1 deals with "unwarranted assumption"
and Flaw 2 deals with "absence of evidence" as explicitly stated above.

The question stem says the argument is flawed because it says...
Number 1 Question, does this question stem could be equated to "the argument is flawed because it takes for granted that..."
I would say yes.

Moving on...

Now answer choice
E says Having a violent character doesn't necessarily lead to assaulting.
I chose this answer, yet it is an incorrect one.

Because the question stem says: the argument is flawed because it reasons that... thus combining this question stem with answer choice E

the argument is flawed because it reasons that having a violent character doesn't necessarily lead to assault.

Actually, this is opposite of what the author is saying right... he believes that having a violent character DOES necessarily lead to assaulting.

While shocked that I missed this question despite of knowing the correct answer, I realize that re-wording answer choice E would make it a correct answer:

if the question stem were to say: "the argument is flawed because it overlooks the fact that..."

If combined with answer choice E, it would say:

the argument is flawed because it overlooks the fact that Having a violent character doesn't necessarily lead to assaulting.

This would have been the correct answer.

Number 2 question: I am correct so far right?
...

Sorry for the long introduction but here is my real question:

so as I have demonstrated above, I realize that depending on the question stem, the answer choice has to be worded in a certain way... Could I take for a fact that the answer choice of "takes for granted flaw" question stem would be the polar opposite version of the answer choice of "overlooks the fact flaw" question stem?

Please let me know if I have written something wrong or need further clarifications! Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The question stem says the argument is flawed because it says...
Number 1 Question, does this question stem could be equated to "the argument is flawed because it takes for granted that..."

Actually this question stem says that "the argument is fallacious because it reasons that..." Similar, but a little different. An argument that involves an assumption is fallacious reasoning, but you could also see it as describing the how the evidence relates to the conclusion in an erroneous way (basically the same thing).

Number 2 question: I am correct so far right?

You're right on!

so as I have demonstrated above, I realize that depending on the question stem, the answer choice has to be worded in a certain way... Could I take for a fact that the answer choice of "takes for granted flaw" question stem would be the polar opposite version of the answer choice of "overlooks the fact flaw" question stem?

Really close! How about we say the logical opposite. The polar opposite is probably too far. For example if the argument takes for granted that no one ate the cookies in the jar, we cannot say the argument failed to consider that everyone ate the cookies in the jar. We can only say that the argument failed to consider that at least one person at the cookies in the jar.

Nice work!