Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 20:50

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

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 179
If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 19 Nov 2018, 01:17
1
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:05) correct 59% (02:12) wrong based on 226 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the prosecution is able to get a prestigious firm to take their case, then the defendant's chances will be greatly weakened, and he will most likely be given a lengthy sentence. But Charles Chase, a powerful witness for the defense, will only cooperate if Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious law firm takes the prosecution's case.

Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?


A. Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant.

B. The defendant will get a lengthy sentence.

C. A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case.

D. Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense.

E. Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant.

Originally posted by bschool83 on 21 Jul 2011, 17:55.
Last edited by Bunuel on 19 Nov 2018, 01:17, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Retired Moderator
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1733
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2011, 18:18
1
bschool83 wrote:
If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the prosecution is able to get a prestigious firm to take their case, then the defendant's chances will be greatly weakened, and he will most likely be given a lengthy sentence. But Charles Chase, a powerful witness for the defense, will only cooperate if Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious law firm takes the prosecution's case.

Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant.
The defendant will get a lengthy sentence.
A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case.
Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense.
Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant.


What does "their" refer to. Anyway,

Definitely true: Charles Chase didn't cooperate with the defense.

"Charles Chase" will testify only if "Elvira Johnson & prestigious firm" complies. The defendant didn't get long term; it means "Charles Chase" didn't cooperate. Because, had he complied, the defendant must have gotten long term, because other two prerequisites "Elvira Johnson testimony & firm's association" would be true at the time of his testimony.

Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant.
>Not necessarily false. firm and Charles may have turned their backs.

The defendant will get a lengthy sentence.
>Question says; case NOT greatly weakened. Defendant may not get long term.

A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case.
>Elvira J and Charles may not have complied.

Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense.
>Elvira & Firm-true
If this option true: case will greatly weakened. Thus, this can't be true.

Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant.
>Okay!!! How about the other two?

Ans: "D"
_________________
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 433
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2011, 18:32
I arrived at D using Conditional Reasoning.

From the argument,

EJ AND Prestigious firm ------> CC -----> Defendant chances weakened AND most likely Lengthy sentence

Contrapositive of this is

~Defendant chances weakened OR ~most likely Lengthy sentence ---> ~CC ---> ~EJ OR ~Prestigious firm

From the contrapositive, the only thing that can be false is "Charlie Chase will Cooperate with the defence."
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 280
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2011, 03:51
If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the prosecution is able to get a prestigious firm to take their case, then the defendant's chances will be greatly weakened, and he will most likely be given a lengthy sentence. But Charles Chase, a powerful witness for the defense, will only cooperate if Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious law firm takes the prosecution's case.

E.J. AGAINST defence + prestigious firm takes prosecution case --> defendant chance weakened --> lengthy sentence
E.J testify + prestigious firm ---> CC witneess ---> FOR defence.

In other words, CC will testify only if first statement holds true.

Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant. ---- WEAKENED
The defendant will get a lengthy sentence. ----- ??
A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case. --- WEAKENED
Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense. ----- WEAKENED
Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant. ----- WEAKENED

I am going with B. Can anyone tell me whats wrong with this...or tell me whats the OA.

Its a great problem!!



In all
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 179
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2011, 10:36
2
mourinhogmat1 wrote:
I am going with B. Can anyone tell me whats wrong with this


B is an outcome and we are supposed to identify a reasoning leading up the outcome. B is a distortion.

Here is my approach:

The question stems with many negative words tend to be confusing. I approach such questions a bit differently. I try to combine two negative words into a positive... sort of mathematically (-*-=+)

GMAT question stem: Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

My interpretation: If defendant's chances are slightly strengthened, then which of the following must be false?

In order for the defendant to win, Elvira Johnson should testify and the prestigious firm should take the prosecution's case, because that's when Charles Chase will cooperate. Charles Chase not cooperating will strengthen defendant's chances, because it means Elvira Johnson must not be testifying and the prestigious firm must not be prosecution's case.

So immediately pick D.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 162
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2011, 01:53
1
I picked D.

My reasoning was this:
If the defendant's chances are NOT weakened then some or all of the following cases (without going into the answers as yet) must be true:
1. Elvira Johnson might not have testified
2. A prestigious firm has not been able to take up the case
3. Charles Chase may not have cooperated
4. The victim may not be given a long sentence

Now coming to answer choices:
A. Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant --> We can't be sure. If this is so, then you can't definitively say the prosecution has been successful in finding a good law firm.
B. The defendant will get a lengthy sentence --> This is a consequence. If we picked this, we would be going beyond the scope of the argument to state that there is another element influencing the sentence. Therefore, wrong.
C. A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case --> Again, you can't say whether this definitely false without ruling out the other two options
D. Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense --> This will be the tipping point in the case. If E.J. testified, if the prosecution succeeded in getting the right law firm, and if Charles Chase cooperated, then the defendant's chances are going to be greatly reduced.
E. Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant --> This can be misleading, but ultimately would lead nowhere.
_________________
petrifiedbutstanding
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 177
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2011, 12:16
Highly doubt this is a GMAT Prep question...this has the smell, flavor and taste of an LSAT question...Plus the logic used in this type of question is tested frequently on the LSAT...But that said -- lately I keep hearing that GMAC's CR questions are stretching the limits and are no longer sticking to the standard assumption, weaken/strengthen, inference and flaw questions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Apr 2011
Posts: 240
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2011, 12:35
DevilDoggNC wrote:
Highly doubt this is a GMAT Prep question...this has the smell, flavor and taste of an LSAT question...Plus the logic used in this type of question is tested frequently on the LSAT...But that said -- lately I keep hearing that GMAC's CR questions are stretching the limits and are no longer sticking to the standard assumption, weaken/strengthen, inference and flaw questions.


So they give out more resolve the paradox type questions and boldface?
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 177
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2011, 22:28
Mahtab wrote:
DevilDoggNC wrote:
Highly doubt this is a GMAT Prep question...this has the smell, flavor and taste of an LSAT question...Plus the logic used in this type of question is tested frequently on the LSAT...But that said -- lately I keep hearing that GMAC's CR questions are stretching the limits and are no longer sticking to the standard assumption, weaken/strengthen, inference and flaw questions.


So they give out more resolve the paradox type questions and boldface?


This is purely subjective -- so take it with a big scoop of salt. These are observations I have gathered from some colleagues and friends who have taken the GMAT within the last year or so.

Yes -- definitely more Boldface questions -- especially if you are doing well. A couple of my friends took the test a few weeks back -- and both mentioned they hardly saw 2, 3 or 4 strengthen / weaken questions tops. And even those were questions with "all of the following except" constructions. One of them said she got at least a couple of "evaluate the plan" and "the author is most likely to agree with all of the following except" type of questions.

Another interesting observation -- One of them said he saw just one probability question and zero combination questions (Quant 48). The general feedback was that co-ordinate geometry, number properties -- especially prime number, consecutive numbers, even-odd and integer properties, functions, percents and exponents seem to hold "high-value".
Economist GMAT Tutor Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 69
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2013, 12:20
Simply put, choice D is the only one that definitively rules out both of the circumstances that lead to the weakened case.
_________________
Economist GMAT Tutor
http://econgm.at/econgmat
(866) 292-0660
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4779
Re: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2018, 08:12
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: If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros   [#permalink] 18 Aug 2018, 08:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros

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





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