Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 17 Sep 2014, 03:58

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
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] New post 06 Jan 2010, 03:48
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

75% (02:40) correct 25% (01:24) wrong based on 4 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
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 69

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 04:03
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 228
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 04:37
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 269
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 04:44
SHUD BE C...
Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 69

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 05:17
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
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 269
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 84 [1] , given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 06:54
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
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [1] , given: 1

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 08:12
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.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [1] , given: 9

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 08:39
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 147
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 10:00
I think Answer is E. whats the OA?
Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 69

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 10:09
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 206
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 13:01
Even i think its E whats the OA?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2010, 22:38
Thanks, gr8 explanation, i had chosen (E) but got it wrong
OA i (C)
Re: Mr Smith   [#permalink] 06 Jan 2010, 22:38
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of Zatarra 7 13 Jan 2011, 08:10
1 Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of RaviChandra 11 23 Apr 2010, 21:47
3 Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting SudiptoGmat 22 19 Feb 2010, 05:07
1 If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to vaivish1723 4 01 Jul 2009, 00:10
PS: Mr. & Mrs. Smith TeHCM 2 06 Dec 2005, 00:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.