|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 3
|
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]
 06 Jan 2010, 04:48
Question Stats:
66% (03:24) correct
33% (01:24) wrong based on 0 sessions
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.
The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that
(A) aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character
(B) Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive
(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
(D) Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive
(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes
I got this wrong, please suggest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuck Thread Master
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 314
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
68
[0], given: 69
|
isn't it (E)?
having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes
Mr. Smith's violent character is well-proven with help of Ms. Lopezs testimony, but it doesn't make Mr. Smith a criminal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 229
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 1
|
modirashmi wrote: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.
The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that
(A) aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character
(B) Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive
(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
(D) Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive
(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes
I got this wrong, please suggest The answer should be E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 274
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
60
[0], given: 1
|
SHUD BE C...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuck Thread Master
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 314
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
68
[0], given: 69
|
chetan2u wrote: SHUD BE C... That's how I see this stimulus: Facts: a) There are no eyewitnesses of the crime (Smith assaulting Jackson) b) Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her c) Smith never refuted this testimony. Attorney concludes that: 1) Mr. Smith has a violent character 2) Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson < - Main conclusion Both of attorney's conclusions could be attacked and refuted. But main point of the paragraph is about Mr. Smith being criminal. So IMO we should find logical fallacy in this main conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 274
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
60
[1] , given: 1
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
shalva wrote: chetan2u wrote: SHUD BE C... That's how I see this stimulus: Facts: a) There are no eyewitnesses of the crime (Smith assaulting Jackson) b) Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her c) Smith never refuted this testimony. Attorney concludes that: 1) Mr. Smith has a violent character 2) Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson < - Main conclusion Both of attorney's conclusions could be attacked and refuted. But main point of the paragraph is about Mr. Smith being criminal. So IMO we should find logical fallacy in this main conclusion hi.. how i look at this Q is that The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that means we have to find something the attorney is trying to prove... as for A and E, the attorney is trying to prove the opposite of '" (E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes ... only C fits in his reasoning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[1] , given: 1
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
Ans s/b C.
I eliminated A & E because the attorney's argument relies on the opposite of the assumptions in those choices i.e that aggressive behavior is an indicator of a violent character (A) and having a violent character is associated with the commission of a violent crime(E).
We do not know about B from the passage as Smith did not testify - even if he did - it is not discussed in passage. I eliminated D as we do not know anything about Lopez's character/temperament from the passage. This leaves me with only C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 210
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[1] , given: 5
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
Answer is C Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a violent character. Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony. The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that: (C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her Conclusion drawn: Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr Jackson. Based on: Ms Lopez testified that Mr Smith threatened her, which he did not refute. Therefore he did threaten her. This indicates his violent character. Assumption: Since Mr Smith did not refute the testimony, therefore he did threaten her.
_________________
"Always....Read between the lines"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 157
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 1
|
I think Answer is E. whats the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuck Thread Master
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 314
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
68
[0], given: 69
|
chetan2u wrote: hi.. how i look at this Q is that The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that means we have to find something the attorney is trying to prove...
as for A and E, the attorney is trying to prove the opposite of '"(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes ... only C fits in his reasoning You're right , completely missed that point. We should find same line of reasoning in answer choices as one in attorneys conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 207
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 6
|
Even i think its E whats the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 3
|
Thanks, gr8 explanation, i had chosen (E) but got it wrong
OA i (C)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
