I'll choose E

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!!!

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



(C)

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.

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

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

+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

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

I picked E too....but it is kind of LSAT-centric..
_________________

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

(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

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."