Analogy — Plaintiff : Defendant\nChoose the pair that best preserves the relationship of opposing parties in a legal matter.

Introduction / Context:
In the stem “Plaintiff : Defendant,” the two terms denote opposing parties in a legal proceeding. In civil disputes, the plaintiff brings the action and the defendant answers it. We need an option that likewise captures a clear adversarial or opposing-party relationship within the legal context.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The analogy calls for role opposition, not mere association.
• Criminal and civil terminology differ, but the essence is complainant or victim versus the person alleged to have caused harm.
• We should reject pairs that mix institutions with roles or use synonyms rather than opposites.

Concept / Approach:
Test each option for role polarity similar to plaintiff versus defendant. Prefer a party harmed or complaining versus a party alleged responsible, reflecting an adversarial setup.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Legal proceedings often frame disputes as complainant or injured party versus accused or defendant. While the exact civil counterpart of plaintiff is not “injured,” the adversarial polarity is best preserved by “Injured : Accused” among given choices.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Judge : Jury — cooperative functions, not adversaries.
• Court : Law — structure vs doctrine, not parties.
• Attorney : Lawyer — same role; no opposition.

Common Pitfalls:
Expecting exact civil terminology duplicates in options; the test checks for structural opposition, not identical labels.

Final Answer:
Injured : Accused