It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 12:53

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

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

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 04:48
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

49% (01:04) correct 51% (01:59) wrong based on 159 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

I got this wrong, please suggest

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 05:03
isn't it (E)?

having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes


Mr. Smith's violent character is well-proven with help of Ms. Lopezs testimony, but it doesn't make Mr. Smith a criminal

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 333 [0], given: 1

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 05:37
modirashmi 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

I got this wrong, please suggest


The answer should be E

Kudos [?]: 333 [0], given: 1

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5855 [1], given: 117

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 05:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
SHUD BE C...
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5855 [1], given: 117

Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 06:17
chetan2u wrote:
SHUD BE C...


That's how I see this stimulus:

Facts:
a) There are no eyewitnesses of the crime (Smith assaulting Jackson)
b) Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her
c) Smith never refuted this testimony.

Attorney concludes that:
1) Mr. Smith has a violent character
2) Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson < - Main conclusion

Both of attorney's conclusions could be attacked and refuted. But main point of the paragraph is about Mr. Smith being criminal. So IMO we should find logical fallacy in this main conclusion

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5855 [2], given: 117

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 07:54
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
shalva wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
SHUD BE C...


That's how I see this stimulus:

Facts:
a) There are no eyewitnesses of the crime (Smith assaulting Jackson)
b) Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her
c) Smith never refuted this testimony.

Attorney concludes that:
1) Mr. Smith has a violent character
2) Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson < - Main conclusion

Both of attorney's conclusions could be attacked and refuted. But main point of the paragraph is about Mr. Smith being criminal. So IMO we should find logical fallacy in this main conclusion


hi.. how i look at this Q is that The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that means we have to find something the attorney is trying to prove...
as for A and E, the attorney is trying to prove the opposite of '"(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes ... only C fits in his reasoning
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5855 [2], given: 117

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 1

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 09:12
1
This post received
KUDOS
Ans s/b C.

I eliminated A & E because the attorney's argument relies on the opposite of the assumptions in those choices i.e that aggressive behavior is an indicator of a violent character (A) and having a violent character is associated with the commission of a violent crime(E).

We do not know about B from the passage as Smith did not testify - even if he did - it is not discussed in passage. I eliminated D as we do not know anything about Lopez's character/temperament from the passage. This leaves me with only C.

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 1

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 204

Kudos [?]: 45 [1], given: 9

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 09:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
Answer is C

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


Conclusion drawn: Mr. Smith is guilty of assaulting Mr Jackson.
Based on: Ms Lopez testified that Mr Smith threatened her, which he did not refute. Therefore he did threaten her. This indicates his violent character.
Assumption: Since Mr Smith did not refute the testimony, therefore he did threaten her.
_________________

"Always....Read between the lines"

Kudos [?]: 45 [1], given: 9

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 11:00
I think Answer is E. whats the OA?

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 11:09
chetan2u wrote:
hi.. how i look at this Q is that The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that means we have to find something the attorney is trying to prove...
as for A and E, the attorney is trying to prove the opposite of '"(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes ... only C fits in his reasoning


You're right , completely missed that point. We should find same line of reasoning in answer choices as one in attorneys conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 547 [0], given: 6

Location: Manchester UK
Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 14:01
Even i think its E whats the OA?

Kudos [?]: 547 [0], given: 6

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Re: Mr Smith [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 23:38
Thanks, gr8 explanation, i had chosen (E) but got it wrong
OA i (C)

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 06:07
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 08:27
I'll choose E

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 5

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 08:58
IMO E too

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 5

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 364

Kudos [?]: 199 [1], given: 22

Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 12:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.


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!!!

Kudos [?]: 199 [1], given: 22

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 278 [1], given: 25

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 12:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
I have chose E too but OA is C. C is more powerful.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Kudos [?]: 278 [1], given: 25

Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 14:23
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

Quote:
since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her


(C)

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 69

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 22:44
It would have been better to have OE as I still believe E is better

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

WE 1: Investment Banking - 6yrs
Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 23:26
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.


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.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

Re: attorney’s argument is fallacious   [#permalink] 19 Feb 2010, 23:26

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 39 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.