Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 30 May 2017, 00:05

### 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: 264
Location: India
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 25

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 06:07
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

46% (02:03) correct 54% (02:02) wrong based on 117 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

good question.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 325
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 08:27
I'll choose E
Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 41
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 08:58
IMO E too
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 364
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 175 [1] , given: 22

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 12:21
1
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!!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 264
Location: India
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 252 [1] , given: 25

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

### Show Tags

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

Cheers,
SD

Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 307
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 69

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

### Show Tags

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)
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 325
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 22:44
It would have been better to have OE as I still believe E is better
Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 543
WE 1: Investment Banking - 6yrs
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 92

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

### Show Tags

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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 264
Location: India
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 25

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 264
Location: India
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 25

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

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1394
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 862

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.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1179
Followers: 438

Kudos [?]: 1606 [1] , given: 4

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 250
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 4

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...
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1669
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 103

Kudos [?]: 995 [0], given: 109

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

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 208
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2011, 07:06
C it is.
Manager
Status: Preparing for GMAT !!!
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 126
Followers: 2

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 !!

Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 82
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 40 [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"
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 239
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 234 [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
Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [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.
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: 71
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.1
Followers: 2

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

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."

Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting   [#permalink] 19 Apr 2012, 21:24

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Mr. Janeck: I don t believe Stevenson will win the election 7 23 Aug 2016, 22:15
I'm not finding accuracy in Find the conclusion/Inference 1 04 Apr 2012, 23:40
Mr. Janeck: I don t believe Stevenson will win the election 5 26 May 2012, 20:55
13 Mr. Janeck: I don t believe Stevenson will win the election 24 08 Oct 2015, 20:10
6 Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting 12 21 Jun 2015, 13:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by