GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video
close

It is currently 26 Nov 2020, 13:28
Register
GMAT Club Tests
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New comers' posts
New posts
Unanswered

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
PREVIOUS TOPIC
NEXT TOPIC
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants
9 posts Go to First Unread Post
Print view
NEW TOPIC
POST REPLY
Downloads
My Bookmarks
Reviews
SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags :
Find Similar Topics 

Show Tags
Hide Tags

User avatar
V
Hovkial
Director
Director
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Status:PhD-trained. Education, Research, Teaching, Training, Consulting and Advisory Services
Posts: 780
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  24 Nov 2019, 06:30
3
10
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (02:33) correct 37% (02:35) wrong based on 415 sessions

Hide Show timer Statistics

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self‐incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/Login.
request expert reply
Most Helpful Community Reply
avatar
D
auradediligodo
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 401
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
Schools: INSEAD, Stanford, CBS, HBS, Berkeley Haas, Wharton
GPA: 3.9
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  03 Dec 2019, 01:39
7
1
Bookmarks
Hovkial wrote:
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self‐incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.



Option B

We have one plaintiff and 3 codefendants that we will call C1,C2 and C3. Each of these codefendants have a legal counsel that we will call L1, L2 and L3.
C1 and C2 have the same legal counsel so that the new list of legal counsels is L1, L1 and L2.

The argument states that the plaintiff asks to question each codefendants one by one and the only extra person who is allowed to be there is the codefendant's legal counsel. The other legal counsels are not allowed to be in the courtroom.

The judge denies the request.

Clearly in this scenario C1 and C2, who share the legal counsel L1, would not be able to bring their own legal counsel to the courtroom.

Falsification scenario: what if each codefendant is allowed to represent himself without a legal counsel? Clearly the argument breaks.
Assumption: A legal counsel must always be present when the defendant is questioned
General Discussion
avatar
B
akshay0542
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2019
Posts: 11
GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V23
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  18 Dec 2019, 06:12
1
in this question 'their" counseller isn ot allowed
let c1 & c2 share same counseller athen counseller of C3 can be present then how option b is correct ?
Also i am not able to understand correctly so can you pls explain each of the option and wy they are wrong
User avatar
D
AnirudhaS
LBS Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2019
Posts: 629
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Schools: INSEAD Jan'21 Intake, Cambridge '22, LBS '23
GPA: 4
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  18 Dec 2019, 06:38
1
auradediligodo wrote:
Hovkial wrote:
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self‐incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.



Option B

We have one plaintiff and 3 codefendants that we will call C1,C2 and C3. Each of these codefendants have a legal counsel that we will call L1, L2 and L3.
C1 and C2 have the same legal counsel so that the new list of legal counsels is L1, L1 and L2.

The argument states that the plaintiff asks to question each codefendants one by one and the only extra person who is allowed to be there is the codefendant's legal counsel. The other legal counsels are not allowed to be in the courtroom.

The judge denies the request.

Clearly in this scenario C1 and C2, who share the legal counsel L1, would not be able to bring their own legal counsel to the courtroom.

Falsification scenario: what if each codefendant is allowed to represent himself without a legal counsel? Clearly the argument breaks.
Assumption: A legal counsel must always be present when the defendant is questioned



Crystal clear explanation. Thanks. i was thinking in the same lines, however could not reach the conclusion.
avatar
D
auradediligodo
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 401
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
Schools: INSEAD, Stanford, CBS, HBS, Berkeley Haas, Wharton
GPA: 3.9
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  18 Dec 2019, 08:10
akshay0542 wrote:
in this question 'their" counseller isn ot allowed
let c1 & c2 share same counseller athen counseller of C3 can be present then how option b is correct ?
Also i am not able to understand correctly so can you pls explain each of the option and wy they are wrong


Read carefully, the argument says that the plaintiff ask to question EACH codefendant. So while in one case it would be possible, in the others it would not.
avatar
B
apurv09
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 610 Q41 V35
CAT Tests
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  18 Dec 2019, 08:46
Hovkial wrote:
Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self‐incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.


Here's my take on this. since the plantiff asks to question the defendant without the co- defendant or the co defendant's consel.
since two have common counsel, it will be possible only when the defendant is questioned alone , since the counsel is common.

Hence B will be correct to support the judge's conclusion
avatar
B
Yellkrishna
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2019
Posts: 65
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  17 May 2020, 16:55
The plaintiff’s request cannot be granted because the request contradicts with the requirement that a defendant can have his counsel with him during interrogation. Since the plaintiff asked for the counsel of codefendant be not be present, there is a conflict.

A. The bone of contention is not whether information given to counsel can be revealed to the court.

B. This succinctly describes the conundrum.

C. Out of scope.

D. The judge denied the appeal not because the right of the plaintiff is same as or different from the defendant but because there is a conflict of the request with the rules.

E. No information is given regarding this issue.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
B
bonbonzzz
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Feb 2020
Posts: 4
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  05 Jun 2020, 19:58
"The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present."

Is it saying that the plaintiff wants to question each defendant without their codefendant, or each defendant without their codefendants' legal counsel

or

plaintiff want so to question each defendant without their codefendant, or each defendant with their legal counsel present?

What's the right way to interpret "or" work in this sentence?
avatar
B
NunuBot
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Apr 2020
Posts: 46
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Re: Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants [#permalink] New post  05 Jun 2020, 22:40
Perhaps reframing the question would make it easier to understand.

Principal:
- The case before me involves a victim and three bullies.
- The victims asks to speak to each bully without the other bullies or the other bullies' parents present.
- However two of the bullies are siblings (and share a parent)
- And the school cannot ask any student to change their parents
- The school cannot grant the victim's request


The clearest answer is B - if the bullies have the right to have their parents present, then the school would have to let the same one parent be present in two of the conversation with the bullies. In this case, there is no way for the school to enfoce the victim's request, therefore the victim's request is dismissed.

Hope this clear things up a little

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
[#permalink]
NEW TOPIC
POST REPLY
Downloads
My Bookmarks
Reviews
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
3989 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
270 posts
mira93
CR Forum Moderator
124 posts
nightblade354
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
1039 posts
eakabuah
CR Forum Moderator
812 posts
Feedback

cron

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

Main navigation

GMAT Resources

Partners

MBA Resources

www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions