It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 15:02

### 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

# Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 25

Location: India
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2010, 04:16
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

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 25

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 25

Location: India
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2010, 04:21
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

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 25

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1403

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 916

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2011, 02:43
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.

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 916

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1955 [1], given: 6

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2011, 05:09
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 1955 [1], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 4

Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2011, 11:20
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
C it Right!

E is totally wrong! The attorney reasons exactly the opposite of E...

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 4

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1634

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2011, 14:42
+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: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 202

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2011, 07:06
C it is.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Manager
Status: Preparing for GMAT !!!
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 124

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 41

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2011, 11:59
I picked E too....but it is kind of LSAT-centric..
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 41

Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 2

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2011, 10:32
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"

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 271 [0], given: 8

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2011, 15:49
(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

Kudos [?]: 271 [0], given: 8

Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 19

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2012, 01:57
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.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 19

Manager
Status: If u've ego, u've reached ur limit; if ur humble u've no limit.
Affiliations: IIT
Joined: 04 Mar 2011
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 30

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.1
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2012, 21:24
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."

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 30

Manager
Affiliations: Project Management Professional (PMP)
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 12

Location: New Delhi, India
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2012, 01:55
IMO C as all other options do not point to the flaw in the argument.
_________________

Best
Vaibhav

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2012, 08:23
No mention is made in the prompt of a testimony by Mr. Smith so this precludes B from being correct.

The right answer is C, since that flawed reasonibg can be found in the argument.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 166

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2012, 03:23
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

One of the ways to Flaw a reasoning is to introduce errors in the use of Evidence.
"Errors in the use of evindence can be of 4 kinds as per powerscore :
1)Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that the position is false
2)Treating failure to prove a claim as evidence of the denial of that claim
3)Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence that weakens the claim
4)Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove hat the position is true.

In the above stimulus, the type of reasoning used is same as (4).
Here :
Position : Mr. Smith has a violent character.
Evidence for the position : Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her.
Evidence against the position : None
Smith never refuted this testimony." that means there is Lack of evidence against the position
Hence , the argument is forcing us to believe that the positon is true, i.e. Mr. Smith has a violent character, and Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
This falls in line with option (C) : since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
Hence (C) is the right answer

(A) aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character
In fact the attorney reasons the opposite way - he/she indeed say whatever Smith has done, it is a sure indicator of a violent character
(B) Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive
The Attorney develops the reasoning in the argument based on Smith’s testimony. Hence Smith’s testimony cannot be unreliable as per the Attorney
(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her
Correct. Reason discussed above
(D) Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive
In the argument, nothing is discussed about the behavior of Lopez. We don't know whether she is loud or aggressive.
(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes
This is the opposite of what the Attorney is trying to convey. in fact the Attorney wants to reason that having a violent character is associated behaviors like assaulting others (like jackson in this case)
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 166

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10110

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2015, 13:03
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10110

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2015, 13:11
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10110

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2017, 04:06
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 817

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 23:48
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting   [#permalink] 26 Jul 2017, 23:48

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by