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

It is currently 21 Oct 2014, 04:06

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

Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 486
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 337

Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of [#permalink] New post 23 Apr 2010, 21:47
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

44% (02:13) correct 56% (01:19) wrong based on 5 sessions
Q24)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

Please explain ur answers
_________________

One Final Try.......

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 131
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 208 [1] , given: 10

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 23 Apr 2010, 22:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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

Please explain ur answers

here is my explanation:
the Attorney's conclusion that Mr. Smith has a violent character is primary based on apocryphal assumption "Smith never refuted this testimony whether he shouted on Ms. Lopez so it means he accepted the allegations."
and this questionable assumption is stated in option C, which is correct answer. IMO C
for all other options difficult to justify, just i can read and say these are not fallacious statements based on the given argument. difficult to put in words ;)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 40
Followers: 1

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

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 24 Apr 2010, 01:36
Ans : C
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 29
Followers: 0

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

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 26 Apr 2010, 12:13
please explain further....not understanding
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1560
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 6

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2010, 11:57
should be (C)

Attorney says that Mr. Smith has violent character. And his reasoning is that Ms. Lopez showed that Mr. Smith threatened her (shouting loudly) and Mr. Smith never refuted this testimony (testimony that Mr. Smith threatened Ms. Lopez)

Attorney is wrong because he reasons that since Smith never disproved Lopez's claim, he did in fact threaten Lopez. (which is option C)

Q24)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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

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

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 29 Apr 2010, 06:59
RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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

Please explain ur answers


Attorneys argument is that though Mr Smith has no eyewitness to crime but he has violent caracter, he conludes that because Mr Smith threatened Ms Lopez.
Attorney relates this Violent behaviour to Crime.

SO any answer choice that says that Violent behabior is not indication of bein a criminal is the correct answer.

Hence IMO E
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 956
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 732 [0], given: 40

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 04 May 2010, 03:30
IMO E.

Premise - Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Premise: Regrettably.

Conclusion - Mr. Smith has a violent character.

I think this premise is to support the attorney's conclusion on Mr. Smith and even the attorney is not sure about his claim (see the premise of Regrettably). He just assumed from the example. We need to show tha flaw/fallacy in this assumption of the stated argument.

Let's check C and E:

(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her [What if Mr. Smith is changed now OR he is under pressure from underworld for not to speak against her. Incorrect]

(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes. Try to negate this -

having a violent character is necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes.

It supports our conclusion but moves against the premises. So, correct.

RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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

Please explain ur answers

_________________

Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 19 May 2010, 21:50
I believe the answer should be C. the reason it should be C is that the attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that Mr. Smith did in fact threaten Ms. Lopez rather than concentrating on proving Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 486
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 337

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 21 May 2010, 01:17
OA C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

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

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 22 May 2010, 07:17
RaviChandra wrote:
OA C


why none of u considers A and only C ?

Can anybody explain C in more detail ?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 317
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 13

Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 25 May 2010, 03:34
(E) having a violent character is [caption=]not[/caption] necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes

if "not" is removed it would be a valid answer ....the best available answer among the rest is C.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: 1000CR:attorney argument [#permalink] New post 31 May 2010, 06:39
I was debating between C and E. However, even after knowing OA is C, I still don't see how to eliminate E.
My explanation is this:
Premise --> Ms Lopez says Mr. Smith threatened her
Conclusion --> Mr. Smith is guilty of Mr. Jackson Assaulting

Secondary

Premise: Mr. Smith did not refute Ms. Lopez testimony
Conclusion --> None. (we can infer that Attorney tries to imply that Ms. Lopez testimony is true but it is not in the text)

Thus, attorney's argument is fallacious because: the fact that he showed his violent character with Ms. Lopez does not necessarily associate with the commission of violent crimes (like Mr. Jackson's assaulting)

IMO is E while C does not relate with the real argument.
Any thoughts?

Thank you,

PS: It would be use full to know the difficulty of the questions, just to know if we got wrong an easy or hard question.
Re: 1000CR:attorney argument   [#permalink] 31 May 2010, 06:39
    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
3 Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting SudiptoGmat 22 19 Feb 2010, 05:07
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

Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.