Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
10 May 2020, 11:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (01:48) correct
35%
(01:53)
wrong
based on 1065
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Lawyer: This witness acknowledges being present at the restaurant and watching when my client, a famous television personality, was assaulted. Yet the witness claims to recognize the assailant, but not my famous client. Therefore, the witness’s testimony should be excluded.
The lawyer’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) If a witness claims to recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness’s testimony should be included.
(B) There are other witnesses who can identify the lawyer’s client as present during the assault.
(C) It is impossible to determine whether the witness actually recognized the assailant.
(D) The testimony of a witness to an assault should be included only if the witness claims to recognize both parties involved in the assault.
(E) It is unlikely that anyone would fail to recognize the lawyer’s client.
The lawyer’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) If a witness claims to recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness’s testimony should be included.
(B) There are other witnesses who can identify the lawyer’s client as present during the assault.
(C) It is impossible to determine whether the witness actually recognized the assailant.
(D) The testimony of a witness to an assault should be included only if the witness claims to recognize both parties involved in the assault.
(E) It is unlikely that anyone would fail to recognize the lawyer’s client.
Akela
Witness recognises the assailant but not the victim.
Conclusion: Witness's testimony should be excluded.
Since the witness does not recognise one party, the lawyer wants to exclude the witness.
What is the assumption? that if a witness does not recognise at least one party, the testimony should be excluded. So basically it says that the witness should recognise both parties, only then his.her testimony should be included.
This is given in option (D) which is the answer.
(A) If a witness claims to recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness’s testimony should be included.
This is different from option (D). This tells you what one should do if a witness recognises both parties but does not tell you what to do if the witness recognises only one party.
This says that if a witness recognises both, include his testimony. But it doesn't say that include his testimony ONLY if he recognises both parties. So we don't know what one should do if he doesn't recognise one party.
Option (D) tells us that ONLY if the witness recognises both parties, should his testimony be included. This clarifies that in case he doesn't recognise one or both parties, his testimony should not be included.
We need to assume option (D) to be correct to make the conclusion follow.
Answer (D)
Conditional statements are discussed here: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8
https://youtu.be/BW8Ijrhjjq8
https://youtu.be/yQYkL1DSslA
shameekv1989
GMAT 3: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 820
14 May 2020, 13:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Nikan
Nikan :-
Lawyer: This witness acknowledges being present at the restaurant and watching when my client, a famous television personality, was assaulted. Yet the witness claims to recognize the assailant, but not my famous client. Therefore, the witness’s testimony should be excluded.
The lawyer’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
The passage says :-
Sufficient Condition -> Necessary condition :-
Witness does not recognize my client -> Testimony should not be included
Implies
Testimony should be included -> Witness recognizes
If P is true then Q is true
(A) If a witness claims to recognize both parties involved in an assault, then the witness’s testimony should be included.
Sufficient Condition :- witness claims to recognize
Necessary condition :- testimony included
(D) The testimony of a witness to an assault should be included only if the witness claims to recognize both parties involved in the assault.
Sufficient condition :- testimony included
Necessary condition :- witness claims to recognize
Only if is a marker for Necessary condition
If P then Q is a structure for If Suff Cond then Nec. Cond.
Option D is a direct contrapositive of the conclusion. For the conclusion to be true, its contrapositive must be true (thus an unstated premise - assumption)
whereas Option A is a condition where Sufficient condition and Necessary conditions are reversed, thus incorrect
