His last sentence is also fallacious, as he presumes that any suspect is a guilty person. Meese's presumption is wrong because suspect is a suspect and through a due court process may be proven either innocent or guilty. 2. What does Meese assume to be true as a major premise?

It is hard to figure out what Meese assumes to be true since his statement is incoherent and contradictory. However, the ending of the statement suggests that innocent people are never going to be suspect and arrested. Therefore, all arrested people are ipso facto guilty. But this is also uncertain since Meese says that innocent suspects have the right to have a lawyer before being questioned. Either Meese's understanding of a "suspect" is different or has several meanings, or Meese's own reasoning is a suspect.

What language does he confuse, even though he was the U.S. Attorney General?
Meese confuses the meaning of "suspect." It is not clear from his statement how to define a "suspect." How can a "suspect" be guilty and innocent by presumption at the same time? His understanding of the word "suspect" is confusing.

4. Are there false statements in the example? What are they?

All of his statements are false. The first statement renders arrested people "guilty" before they are proven innocent or guilty in the court. The second statement renders "suspects" innocent before their innocence or guilt is proven in the court. His statement that "you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime" is also false because there are many who are suspects but prove to be innocent in