GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Oct 2019, 19:08

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

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

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 22 Jan 2019, 02:06
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (01:49) correct 65% (01:36) wrong based on 225 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

Originally posted by modirashmi on 06 Jan 2010, 04:48.
Last edited by Bunuel on 22 Jan 2019, 02:06, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Tuck School Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 247
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 06:17
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
Math Expert
avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7978
Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 07:54
2
shalva wrote:
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
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 12
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 09:12
1
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 136
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2010, 09:39
1
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"
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 296
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2010, 12:21
1
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!!!
Tuck School Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 247
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#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)
GMAT Tutor
avatar
G
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1806
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2011, 05:09
1
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Status: If u've ego, u've reached ur limit; if ur humble u've no limit.
Affiliations: IIT
Joined: 04 Mar 2011
Posts: 60
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 Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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."
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 186
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 118
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 Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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!!
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5924
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2019, 01:57
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.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson   [#permalink] 22 Jan 2019, 01:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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





cron

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