Please pour your thoughts on the below one-
When the defendant in a trial chooses not to testify, the jury is not supposed to view this as evidence of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Rather, the jury should base its decision on the evidence that is presented throughout the trial. Nevertheless, jurors will often take the failure of a defendant to testify as evidence of that defendant's guilt.
Which of the following can be most properly inferred.
A) Most defendants who refuse to testify in their trials are in fact guilty.
B) The rules should be modified to require defendants to testify regardless of their guilt or innocence.
C) The fact that a defendant refuses to testify is sometimes unfairly considered by a jury.
D) A defendant would sometimes be better served by testifying at trial than by choosing not to testify.
E) Even when a defendant does testify, some jurors not to believe the defendants testimony
Responding to a pm:
It is a conclusion question. You have to choose the option that provides you with the inference that you can draw from the given premises. The premises tell us that the jury is not supposed to consider refusal to testify admission of guilt, but it does. This is what option (C) says and hence, it is most appropriate. It is the conclusion of our stimulus.
As for option (D), I wouldn't say it is incorrect but we are inferring too much in it. It is not the answer (and as you mentioned, you chose C as well). The reason is that you have to look for the "best" option. The question says "which can be most properly inferred?"
Your answer would be the one which gives you the most direct inference.
A and B are best friends and usually sit together in class. Today they are sitting far away from each other. What can you infer from this?
1. A and B are not sitting together today
2. A and B fought today.
I hope you see that the direct inference is 1 and not 2.
It's the same case in this question.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199
Veritas Prep Reviews