Honestly, I’d say the lawyer in “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a charming rookie. He has some good points, but his argument is peppered with emotional appeals that leave room for counter‑argument. If we broke it down, I’d point out where he lacks evidence, where his logic is circular, and where he lets his prejudice cloud his facts. I could rewrite that whole scene in an afternoon, tighten the structure, back every claim with a statute, and still have a few snarky lines for good measure. In a debate, I’d finish before he even opens his hand.

Sure thing—if I add the right statute and a pinch of razor‑sharp wit, that missing line will jump right out. Just wait till I run through the case, then you’ll see the whole thing line up like a well‑crafted closing argument. You’ll want to note how the rookie’s lack of structure left a gap; I fill it in, and the whole narrative becomes airtight.