Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 08 Dec 2016, 00:51

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 214
Location: US
Followers: 0

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

Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 09:19
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the prosecution's key witness.
1. Robert can be convicted on the basis of Edward's testimony against him
2. Edward's testimony would show that Edwards himself perticipated in Roberts' wrongdoing.
3. The crime of which Roberts is accused can only be committed by a person acting alone.
4. If the jury learns that Edwards himself committed some wrong, they will refuse to believe any part of his testimony.

If all four propositions are taken as a group, it can be pointed out that the scenario they describe is
A - a typical situation for a prosecutor.
B - impossible because the propositions are logically inconsistent.
C - unfair to Edwards, who may have to incriminate himself.
D - unfair to Roberts, who may be convicted of the crime.
E - one which Roberts' attorney has created.

If propositions 1,2 &3 are assumed to be true and 4 false, which of the following best describes the outcome of the trial?
A - Both Edwards and Roberts will be convicted of the crime of which Roberts is accused.
B - Both Edwards and Roberts will be convicted of some crime other than the one with which Roberts is already charged.
C - Roberts will be convicted while Edwards will not be convicted.
D - Roberts will not be convicted
E - Roberts will testify against Edwards.

thanks.
If you have any questions
New!
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 09:31
1. A
2. B

Sorry no reasoning available.
Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 09:43
1) C
Edward will put himself in trouble in either case...i dont have much info...

2) D

Robert will not be convicted if 1,2 & 3 are correct..
A is ruled out due to rule 3
B is idealistic..out of scope..
C is ruled out because of rule 2
E is out of scope
_________________

To Strive, To Seek and Not to Yield

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 245
Location: INDIA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 09:44
Hi...

my ans are : 1) C

lets take the above argument as follows ,

premise 1 = edwards is the guy who can say something about the crime above

premise 2 = when edward says something about the crime it shows that he himself has participated in that

premise 3 = If edwards has been prt of the crime and there can be only
one who can do so then edwards is the guy who has done ...

premise 4= now If edwards is the one who has done the crime then the judge does not believe in the testimony of edwards...

there are two things that can come out from ths 1: edwards himself has commited the crime 2 : edwards role as the witness for the crime as roberst doing goes empty...

ths means that edwartds has done the CRIME and robert is not guilty....

so edwardsparticipation as the key witness would make HIM the crime doer and make the situation very UNFAIR towards him....

the ans is c ...

2) the ans here is D ... cos edwards will be the crime doer according to the argument 's premises and also the forth statement is not true roberts will be saved from being convicted

these I believe are wuite tough type simply becos they are difficult to understand...

hope that helps .

Have fun
_________________

the whole worldmakes way for the man who knows wer he's going... good luck

Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 09:48
guys, i dont think these are GMAT Type....
they might be pertaining to LSAT...its very typical...

_________________

To Strive, To Seek and Not to Yield

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 418 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 18:15
B and C. This is an LSAT type question
1- First, Robert can ONLY be convicted if Edwards testifies. However, as soon as Edwards speaks up, he will incriminated himself as #2 says. Finally, if Edwards commited some wrong, the jury will automatically disqualifies what he says as untrue as #4 says. This is clearly inconsistent and is an impossible situation: Edwards' testimony will never be considered and Robert will never be convicted.
2- How can we say that Robert will convicted for some other crime? Edward maybe will but we know nothing for Robert. B is out. D also is out because if Edward speaks, then Robert will be convicted. This can definitely happen although the crime is commited by only one person. In this case, Edward will be convicted for something else than the crime itself while Robert will be convicted for THE crime. IMO C is best because Robert will be convicted for that crime while Edward will NOT be convicted for THAT crime. The latter may be convicted for complicity or some other wrongdoing though.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 19:11
1) B, agree with Paul
2) D. Between B, C & D, I think B and C is equal cos they both need an assumption. D is the best cos it can be inferred from the question.
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 214
Location: US
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 20:58
The OA is
1-B ( for the reasons stated by Paul)
2.D ( for the reasons stated by enigmatic007)

I was not able to understand from the 2 premises -
2. Edward's testimony would show that Edwards himself perticipated in Roberts' wrongdoing.
3. The crime of which Roberts is accused can only be committed by a person acting alone.

how we can infer that Edwards committed the crime. It could be that the actual crime can be committed by only one person(that is Roberts) and Edward could have helped him in the planning stage (or something other than committing the actual act). The 2nd statement says that Edwards participated but not committed and no where is it mentioned that the whole process of this crime act involves only one person.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 245
Location: INDIA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2004, 23:00
anuramm wrote:
The OA is
1-B ( for the reasons stated by Paul)
2.D ( for the reasons stated by enigmatic007)

I was not able to understand from the 2 premises -
2. Edward's testimony would show that Edwards himself perticipated in Roberts' wrongdoing.
3. The crime of which Roberts is accused can only be committed by a person acting alone.

how we can infer that Edwards committed the crime. It could be that the actual crime can be committed by only one person(that is Roberts) and Edward could have helped him in the planning stage (or something other than committing the actual act). The 2nd statement says that Edwards participated but not committed and no where is it mentioned that the whole process of this crime act involves only one person.

hi anu...

you are perfect in ur asumption about the two above statements...but think it like this and think it very narrow ...remember it is critical reasoning and U just have to be very very CRITIC(al) about this although it is very difficult to know when and for what type of argumnets one has to be so narrow....

look and take what the premise reads and do ''not'' look behind the meaning...

premise two says = if edwards gives his testimoni then it paves way for his participation in the crime ....

premise three ONLY one guy can commit the Crime

partcipation = commiting/ and one cannot infer it to be just planning or masterminding the crime...

its something like only the ONE who has commited the crime can know what did happen and how it happened and NO one else wud know ...
since edwards says roberts commited the crime ... a crime which can be both told and testified only by one who has really commited it ... the ''bullet'' hits him back ...

hope that was ok ...

have fun .
_________________

the whole worldmakes way for the man who knows wer he's going... good luck

Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 214
Location: US
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2004, 03:51
hi enigmatic007,
thanks for the explanation. i am able to understand the line of reasoning you have used here. but somehow i am not clear of when i need to draw a line in my inferencing process.
this is my conclusion - i am not going to work anymore on these wierd CR problems if they are typical LSAT type. i would rather spend my time on GMAT+ or anything else that is more relevant to GMAT.
thanks.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing 2 18 Dec 2015, 01:32
7 In response to persistent accusations of producing a low 6 08 Jun 2013, 03:19
3 Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this 13 18 Jun 2007, 10:30
CR-Crime Rate 9 15 May 2007, 23:47
Critical Reasoning: accusation 2 13 May 2007, 13:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by