In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction

Question

In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase. The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect’s flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge’s decision that the evidence was inadmissible?

(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.

(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.

(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.

(E) In all cases in which a person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person.

shashankism · Answer

Seems to be a very tricky question :

Premise : In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. 
Premise : The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase.
Conclusion : The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect’s flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.

Question : Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge’s decision that the evidence was inadmissible?

(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved. 
This doesn't justify the argument as there were other significant factor. He was already a suspect.

(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
This does justify the argument as judge already overturned the suspect's conviction and he was no more a culprit. Hence if he can legally flee from police, there is no issue.

(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. 
If this would be true, police action is justified.

(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act. 
Flight from the police should not be considered as a criminal act, but he was already a culprit which will confuse police.

(E) In all cases in which a person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person. 
This is opposite to the conclusion.

mhtmalpani · Answer

The passage talks about an Illegal chase (which is done by the police). But the option B highlights legal/illegal flee from the police, which is out of context.

So, B cannot be the correct option.

On the other hand, option C talks about the legal moves by the police.

pandeyashwin · Answer

Principle : Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

Premise : A guy ran the other way after seeing the Police(This isn't a criminal act). Police had no reason to chase him other than him fleeing as soon as he saw the police. Therefore , Police's action wasn't justified and any evidence obtained henceforth is inadmissible

Ans C

atrayee345 · Answer

A. This statement doesn’t justify judge’s decision. It rather opposes the decision by stating that a flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion under certain circumstances which are not made clear in the statement. 
B. This statement introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; In this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean the police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument. 
C. The judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there were no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement. Hence, C is the answer.
D. This statement includes the word "should" which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police. 
E. This statement confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). It makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

Whatever choice D is telling us is already given in the passage. The judge already said that police cannot legally give chase to a person without having suspicion of criminal activity. Which is simply restating, more sweepingly, that running away from police should not be considered a criminal act. Thus this choice does nothing to justify the decision of the judge simply because it doesn't provide any basis for the judge's main declaration that the chase given by the police in this case was illegal - we need to justify this and choice C does it sharply.

Adding further reasoning to reject choice D: the negation of this would be that - fleeing away from police should be taken as a criminal offense. This does not shatter the judge's conclusion about the evidence, since we know from logic -> evidence from an illegal chase is inadmissible. This does NOT mean that evidence from a legal case is always admissible. Hence, judge's conclusion might still hold.

In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards