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

Question

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

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

shalva · Answer

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

chetan2u · Answer

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

MrEasy · Answer

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.

aknine · Answer

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.

BarneyStinson · Answer

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.

shalva · Answer

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

(C)

IanStewart · Answer

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.

Cmplkj123 · Answer

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.

SyedSan · Answer

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"

OldFritz · Answer

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

Practicegmat · Answer

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)

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer C

Since Mr. Smith didn’t refute Ms. Lopez’s testimony, the attorney is making the unwarranted assumption that Ms. Lopez’s accusation is in fact true.

Explanation:

Right to Silence : Many legal systems recognize an individual's right to remain silent or to not respond to allegations. The absence of a denial or refutation does not legally imply an admission of guilt.

Court Findings : A court must determine guilt based on the evidence presented, testimonies, and legal standards. Silence or lack of response may factor into perceptions or interpretations but does not equate to a conviction or legal guilt.

In summary, not refuting an allegation does not make someone legally guilty; guilt must be established through the judicial process  .

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

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

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

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