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

It is currently 20 Aug 2014, 05:13

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:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 268
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 05:07
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

43% (02:08) correct 57% (02:03) wrong based on 88 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

good question.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 331
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 07:27
I'll choose E
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 5

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 07:58
IMO E too
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 367
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 97 [1] , given: 22

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 11:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
SudiptoGmat 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

good question.


Ms Lopez testified against Smith and he never refuted the testimony. So since smith never disproved the claim, he did in fact threaten her......this may or may not be true. This is the assumption based on which the attorney is requesting Smith to be found guilty. I think in that sense, C should be the answer.
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 268
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 64 [1] , given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 11:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
I have chose E too but OA is C. C is more powerful.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

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 [?]: 88 [0], given: 69

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 13:23
let's look more closely at the question:

The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that . . .

It means that we should find faulty assumption in attorneys line of reasoning. (E) by itself may be true but that's not what attorney's argument reasons.

Attorney's conclusion: Mr. Smith has a violent character
Attorney's evidence: Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Obviously, attorney assumes, that

Quote:
since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her


(C)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 331
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 21:44
It would have been better to have OE as I still believe E is better
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 549
WE 1: Investment Banking - 6yrs
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 92

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2010, 22:26
SudiptoGmat 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

good question.


What's the source? Good question.

I'm voting for C.

Question : The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that
a - not mentioned
b - makes no sense, does not connect
d - out of scope
e - I would have picked this, if this was just a Weakening question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 268
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2010, 03:16
Its a LSAT question little tougher than typical GMAT question. E is not the right answer. Most of you guys have given right logic. I have initially stumbled and later understood why C is the answer. Good job guys. You all rock.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 268
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2010, 03:21
SudiptoGmat 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

good question.


E is good but it should be the 2nd choice. If I choose C I am going to nullify the only evidence (by rejecting the assumption) provided by the attorney. I should choose E if his evidence is well established. If I can reject root of his logic I better do that.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 454
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 39

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 22 Jun 2011, 01:43
I DO NOT AGREE THAT OA IS C

The conclusion is that the man ASSAULTS. C declares that the man THREATENS. So, C is irrelevant.

E is correct.
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Instructor
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 967
Location: Toronto
Followers: 252

Kudos [?]: 651 [1] , given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 22 Jun 2011, 04:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
It's crucially important to read the question here. The question asks: "The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that..." So the right answer absolutely *must* express some part of the reasoning of the argument. The attorney assumes a violent character *is* associated with the commission of violent crimes; that's the basis of the argument that Smith is guilty of assault, and it is certainly a flawed assumption. If we had an answer choice that said that, it would be a great answer here. But that's the precise *opposite* of what E says: E says a violent character is *not* associated with violent crimes. E is not part of the attorney's reasoning, so E is certainly not the right answer here.

C is the only good answer among the choices, because it is the only answer that directly points to a flaw in the argument. Still, when the question asks "The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that...", the question makes it seem as though there is only one flaw in the attorney's argument. There's not just one flaw; the entire argument is preposterous. The attorney is saying: "Mr. Smith shouted at Ms. Lopez. Therefore Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson." That attorney would be laughed out of court.

In all, it's a strange question, and definitely more of an LSAT question than a GMAT one.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 258
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 23 Jun 2011, 10:20
C it Right!

E is totally wrong! The attorney reasons exactly the opposite of E...
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1726
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 65

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 109

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 24 Jun 2011, 13:42
+1 C !

You have to read carefully the question: "because it reasons that..."
The question is asking you to indicate how the attorney is reasoning, not why he is wrong.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 220
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 5

GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2011, 06:06
C it is.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Preparing for GMAT !!!
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 127
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 41

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2011, 10:59
I picked E too....but it is kind of LSAT-centric..
_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me Kudos !!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 83
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 2

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2011, 09:32
C would be what the lawyer wanted the jury to believe
D would be what I would say in response to the lawyer...
Easy to confuse...but that is "the trap"
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 243
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 8

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2011, 14:49
(A) aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character - argument speaks about guilty in committing assault and not aggressive behavior
(B) Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive - strengthens the argument
(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her - not related to argument's conclusion
(D) Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive - not related to argument's conclusion
(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes - if violent character cannot be the basis of finding Smith guilty, the author's argument falls apart
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 19

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2012, 00:57
IanStewart wrote:
It's crucially important to read the question here. The question asks: "The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that..." So the right answer absolutely *must* express some part of the reasoning of the argument. The attorney assumes a violent character *is* associated with the commission of violent crimes; that's the basis of the argument that Smith is guilty of assault, and it is certainly a flawed assumption. If we had an answer choice that said that, it would be a great answer here. But that's the precise *opposite* of what E says: E says a violent character is *not* associated with violent crimes. E is not part of the attorney's reasoning, so E is certainly not the right answer here.

C is the only good answer among the choices, because it is the only answer that directly points to a flaw in the argument. Still, when the question asks "The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that...", the question makes it seem as though there is only one flaw in the attorney's argument. There's not just one flaw; the entire argument is preposterous. The attorney is saying: "Mr. Smith shouted at Ms. Lopez. Therefore Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson." That attorney would be laughed out of court.

In all, it's a strange question, and definitely more of an LSAT question than a GMAT one.



One kudo +1 for you IanStewert.

Excellent observation, we generally read the question stems in hurry and hence often make mistakes.

Question clearely says: "The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that...."

Had attorney's argument used the reasoning which mentioned in statement E, the argument would not have fall apart. I mean attorney's reasoning would have been right, but that is not the question. We are asked to find the flaw in the reasoning. E, infact supports the reasoning and hence wrong.

By POE, Only C remains,Hence I choosed C. While taking the test, we generally don't have much time for brainstorming to understand the logic behind the answere.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: If u've ego, u've reached ur limit; if ur humble u've no limit.
Affiliations: IIT
Joined: 04 Mar 2011
Posts: 72
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.1
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 30

GMAT Tests User
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink] New post 19 Apr 2012, 20:24
At first I was stuck between C & E and then realized that both are wrong :) Here's why?

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
(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes

Conclusion:I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
Premise1:Mr. Smith has a violent character.
Premise2:Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Suppose C is correct => S threatened L & accepted testimony => from this we can never say that S assaulted J ..... L & J are different ppl.

Option E has an extra "not"
_________________

--Syed
" Some are desperate for success, and therefore destined for it."

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting   [#permalink] 19 Apr 2012, 20:24
    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 modirashmi 11 06 Jan 2010, 03:48
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  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ] 



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®.