The correct answer is (B).
(B) Principle (Identify/Strengthen)
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The question asks for a "principle" that would support the judge's argument, making it a Principle question that mimics a Strengthen question. Furthermore, the question states that the principle is "assumed" by the judge, so your skills in identifying assumptions will also come in handy. The correct answer will be a broader version of the specific assumption underlying the judge's reasoning.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
In this particular case, a plaintiff has requested an order allowing her to question each of three defendants separately, with the other defendants and their respective legal counsel removed from the room. However, the judge concludes (signaled by "therefore") that the request cannot be granted. The evidence is that two of the defendants have the same legal counsel and the court will not order either to get new legal counsel.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
Consider the problem at hand. There are three defendants (call them A, B, and C), two of whom (say, A and B) have the same lawyer. The plaintiff requests that when Defendant A is deposed, Defendants B and C be removed, along with their lawyers. However, if that were to happen, Defendant B would be escorted out with his lawyerÑwho happens also to be Defendant A's lawyer. In that case, Defendant A would be left without legal counsel. By denying the plaintiff's request, the judge assumes that leaving Defendant A to answer questions without legal counsel is unacceptable. The correct answer will generalize this assumption.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(B) is a perfect match. If defendants in general have the right to legal counsel while being questioned, then the judge is right in denying the plaintiff's request since it would allow the questioning of two defendants without legal counsel present.
(A) is Outside the Scope. The plaintiff's request involves questioning the defendants. The legal counsel isn't forced to reveal anything.
(C) is Outside the Scope. No information is provided about self-incrimination. Indeed, nothing indicates that this is even a criminal matter.
(D) is also Outside the Scope since the argument never mentions rights that are denied the defendants but afforded to the plaintiff.
(E) distorts the argument by affirming the defense counsel's right to question the plaintiffÑa concept that is irrelevant to the judge's decision.
