Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 26 Mar 2017, 04:15

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 411

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 22:47
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

44% (02:13) correct 56% (01:19) wrong based on 7 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Q24)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
(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

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 129
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 286 [1] , given: 10

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 23:26
1
KUDOS
RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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
(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

here is my explanation:
the Attorney's conclusion that Mr. Smith has a violent character is primary based on apocryphal assumption "Smith never refuted this testimony whether he shouted on Ms. Lopez so it means he accepted the allegations."
and this questionable assumption is stated in option C, which is correct answer. IMO C
for all other options difficult to justify, just i can read and say these are not fallacious statements based on the given argument. difficult to put in words
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 40
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2010, 02:36
Ans : C
Intern
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2010, 13:13
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1549
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 610 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2010, 12:57
should be (C)

Attorney says that Mr. Smith has violent character. And his reasoning is that Ms. Lopez showed that Mr. Smith threatened her (shouting loudly) and Mr. Smith never refuted this testimony (testimony that Mr. Smith threatened Ms. Lopez)

Attorney is wrong because he reasons that since Smith never disproved Lopez's claim, he did in fact threaten Lopez. (which is option C)

Q24)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

(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
Manager
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 07:59
RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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
(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

Attorneys argument is that though Mr Smith has no eyewitness to crime but he has violent caracter, he conludes that because Mr Smith threatened Ms Lopez.
Attorney relates this Violent behaviour to Crime.

SO any answer choice that says that Violent behabior is not indication of bein a criminal is the correct answer.

Hence IMO E
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 951
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1290 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

04 May 2010, 04:30
IMO E.

Premise - Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Premise: Regrettably.

Conclusion - Mr. Smith has a violent character.

I think this premise is to support the attorney's conclusion on Mr. Smith and even the attorney is not sure about his claim (see the premise of Regrettably). He just assumed from the example. We need to show tha flaw/fallacy in this assumption of the stated argument.

Let's check C and E:

(C) since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her [What if Mr. Smith is changed now OR he is under pressure from underworld for not to speak against her. Incorrect]

(E) having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes. Try to negate this -

having a violent character is necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes.

It supports our conclusion but moves against the premises. So, correct.

RaviChandra wrote:
Q24)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
(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

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 22:50
I believe the answer should be C. the reason it should be C is that the attorney's argument is fallacious because it reasons that Mr. Smith did in fact threaten Ms. Lopez rather than concentrating on proving Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 411

### Show Tags

21 May 2010, 02:17
OA C
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

22 May 2010, 08:17
RaviChandra wrote:
OA C

why none of u considers A and only C ?

Can anybody explain C in more detail ?
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 318
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 04:34
(E) having a violent character is [caption=]not[/caption] necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes

if "not" is removed it would be a valid answer ....the best available answer among the rest is C.
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

31 May 2010, 07:39
I was debating between C and E. However, even after knowing OA is C, I still don't see how to eliminate E.
My explanation is this:
Premise --> Ms Lopez says Mr. Smith threatened her
Conclusion --> Mr. Smith is guilty of Mr. Jackson Assaulting

Secondary

Premise: Mr. Smith did not refute Ms. Lopez testimony
Conclusion --> None. (we can infer that Attorney tries to imply that Ms. Lopez testimony is true but it is not in the text)

Thus, attorney's argument is fallacious because: the fact that he showed his violent character with Ms. Lopez does not necessarily associate with the commission of violent crimes (like Mr. Jackson's assaulting)

IMO is E while C does not relate with the real argument.
Any thoughts?

Thank you,

PS: It would be use full to know the difficulty of the questions, just to know if we got wrong an easy or hard question.
Re: 1000CR:attorney argument   [#permalink] 31 May 2010, 07:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
I'm not finding accuracy in Find the conclusion/Inference 1 21 Feb 2012, 23:23
Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of 7 13 Jan 2011, 09:10
6 Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting 23 19 Feb 2010, 06:07
6 Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting 12 06 Jan 2010, 04:48
1 If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to 4 01 Jul 2009, 01:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by