Which objection concerns the attorney presenting arguments during questioning rather than asking questions?

Which objection concerns the attorney presenting arguments during questioning rather than asking questions?

• A. Lack of Personal Knowledge
• B. Argumentative
• C. Nonresponsive
• D. Narrating

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that during questioning, the lawyer should be eliciting facts, not pushing an argument. An argumentative objection is raised when the attorney uses questions as a way to persuade the jury or express a belief about what happened, rather than simply asking for information from the witness. Think of it this way: good questioning stays neutral and focused on facts the witness can testify to. If the attorney starts advocating—for example, implying conclusions or telling the witness what they should have said, or asking questions that read like statements of opinion—this invites an argumentative ruling. A proper question would seek specific facts, such as “What speed were you traveling at the time?” or “Where were you located when the incident occurred?” while an argumentative prompt might be, “You were reckless, weren't you?” or “Isn't it obvious you were negligent because you ran the red light?” The former aims to uncover evidence; the latter tries to persuade. So, the objection focused on attorney conduct during questioning—arguing instead of asking—best fits the situation described.

The main idea is that during questioning, the lawyer should be eliciting facts, not pushing an argument. An argumentative objection is raised when the attorney uses questions as a way to persuade the jury or express a belief about what happened, rather than simply asking for information from the witness.

Think of it this way: good questioning stays neutral and focused on facts the witness can testify to. If the attorney starts advocating—for example, implying conclusions or telling the witness what they should have said, or asking questions that read like statements of opinion—this invites an argumentative ruling. A proper question would seek specific facts, such as “What speed were you traveling at the time?” or “Where were you located when the incident occurred?” while an argumentative prompt might be, “You were reckless, weren't you?” or “Isn't it obvious you were negligent because you ran the red light?” The former aims to uncover evidence; the latter tries to persuade.

So, the objection focused on attorney conduct during questioning—arguing instead of asking—best fits the situation described.