He asked to sit next to the reverend.
Your job is to show that had Pinckney not been a senator but had still been the pastor of that church Roof would have acted differently. Yes, they were the same person. But when somebody walks up to me they aren't usually looking for Igel, nor are they looking for somebody from my high school, nor are they asking for somebody who routinely mistypes "simultaneous" "simulatneous", nor are they looking for somebody to translate something from Czech. They may be looking for the Igeling's father, the Igel-spouse's husband, or the science teacher in room B193. They are, however, all the same thing.
The claim is that Roof didn't specifically target the senator as senator. Your claim is that he did.
Now, your conclusion is consistent with the evidence; but your evidence isn't either necessary nor sufficient. Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence. Abductive reasoning (that's what this is) is fine for conspiracy theories and hypothesis formation.
I'd think you'd need to show that Roof knew Pinckney was a state senator--necessary evidence, but still not sufficient; and, that had Pinckney been a lay member he'd still have asked to sit next to that particular lay member because it was his "senatorness" that was at stake, not his role as reverend, the leader of the church and congregation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
