Television host: While it' s true that the defendant presented a strong alibi and considerable exculpatory evidence and was quickly acquitted by the jury, I still believe that there must be good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in the case. Otherwise, the prosecutor would not have brought charges in the first place. The reasoning in the television host's argument is flawed in that the argument ['presupposes as evidence the conclusion that it is trying to establish', 'confuses legal standards for guilt with moral standards for guilt', 'places undue reliance on the judgments of an authority figure', 'takes lack of evidence for a view as grounds for concluding that the view is false']