Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the

Question

Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the prosecution's key witness.
1. Robert can be convicted on the basis of Edward's testimony against him
2. Edward's testimony would show that Edwards himself perticipated in Roberts' wrongdoing.
3. The crime of which Roberts is accused can only be committed by a person acting alone.
4. If the jury learns that Edwards himself committed some wrong, they will refuse to believe any part of his testimony.

If all four propositions are taken as a group, it can be pointed out that the scenario they describe is
A - a typical situation for a prosecutor.
B - impossible because the propositions are logically inconsistent.
C - unfair to Edwards, who may have to incriminate himself.
D - unfair to Roberts, who may be convicted of the crime.
E - one which Roberts' attorney has created.

If propositions 1,2 &3 are assumed to be true and 4 false, which of the following best describes the outcome of the trial?
A - Both Edwards and Roberts will be convicted of the crime of which Roberts is accused.
B - Both Edwards and Roberts will be convicted of some crime other than the one with which Roberts is already charged.
C - Roberts will be convicted while Edwards will not be convicted.
D - Roberts will not be convicted
E - Roberts will testify against Edwards.

Again, are these gmat type of CRs. Please explain your choices.
thanks.

Bhai · Answer

1. A
2. B

Sorry no reasoning available.

Karthik · Answer

1) C Edward will put himself in trouble in either case...i dont have much info... :wink:

2) D Robert will not be convicted if 1,2 & 3 are correct.. A is ruled out due to rule 3 B is idealistic..out of scope.. C is ruled out because of rule 2 E is out of scope

enigmatic007 · Answer

Hi...

my ans are : 1) C

lets take the above argument as follows ,

premise 1 = edwards is the guy who can say something about the crime above

premise 2 = when edward says something about the crime it shows that he himself has participated in that

premise 3 = If edwards has been prt of the crime and there can be only
one who can do so then edwards is the guy who has done ...

premise 4= now If edwards is the one who has done the crime then the judge does not believe in the testimony of edwards...

there are two things that can come out from ths 1: edwards himself has commited the crime 2 : edwards role as the witness for the crime as roberst doing goes empty...

ths means that edwartds has done the CRIME and robert is not guilty....

so edwardsparticipation as the key witness would make HIM the crime doer and make the situation very UNFAIR towards him....

the ans is c ...

2) the ans here is D ... cos edwards will be the crime doer according to the argument 's premises and also the forth statement is not true roberts will be saved from being convicted

these I believe are wuite tough type simply becos they are difficult to understand...

hope that helps .

Have fun

Karthik · Answer

guys, i dont think these are GMAT Type....
they might be pertaining to LSAT...its very typical...

Paul, your comments

Paul · Answer

B and C. This is an LSAT type question
1- First, Robert can ONLY be convicted if Edwards testifies. However, as soon as Edwards speaks up, he will incriminated himself as #2 says. Finally, if Edwards commited some wrong, the jury will automatically disqualifies what he says as untrue as #4 says. This is clearly inconsistent and is an impossible situation: Edwards' testimony will never be considered and Robert will never be convicted.
2- How can we say that Robert will convicted for some other crime? Edward maybe will but we know nothing for Robert. B is out. D also is out because if Edward speaks, then Robert will be convicted. This can definitely happen although the crime is commited by only one person. In this case, Edward will be convicted for something else than the crime itself while Robert will be convicted for THE crime. IMO C is best because Robert will be convicted for that crime while Edward will NOT be convicted for THAT crime. The latter may be convicted for complicity or some other wrongdoing though.

bigtooth81 · Answer

1) B, agree with Paul
2) D. Between B, C & D, I think B and C is equal cos they both need an assumption. D is the best cos it can be inferred from the question.

anuramm · Answer

The OA is 
1-B ( for the reasons stated by Paul)
2.D ( for the reasons stated by enigmatic007)

I was not able to understand from the 2 premises -
2. Edward's testimony would show that Edwards himself perticipated in Roberts' wrongdoing.
3. The crime of which Roberts is accused can only be committed by a person acting alone. 

how we can infer that Edwards committed the crime. It could be that the actual crime can be committed by only one person(that is Roberts) and Edward could have helped him in the planning stage (or something other than committing the actual act). The 2nd statement says that Edwards participated but not committed and no where is it mentioned that the whole process of this crime act involves only one person.

enigmatic007 · Answer

hi anu... you are perfect in ur asumption about the two above statements...but think it like this and think it very narrow ...remember it is critical reasoning and U just have to be very very CRITIC(al) about this although it is very difficult to know when and for what type of argumnets one has to be so narrow.... look and take what the premise reads and do ''not'' look behind the meaning... premise two says = if edwards gives his testimoni then it paves way for his participation in the crime .... premise three ONLY one guy can commit the Crime partcipation = commiting/ and one cannot infer it to be just planning or masterminding the crime... its something like only the ONE who has commited the crime can know what did happen and how it happened and NO one else wud know ... since edwards says roberts commited the crime ... a crime which can be both told and testified only by one who has really commited it ... the ''bullet'' hits him back ... hope that was ok ... have fun :-D

.

anuramm · Answer

hi enigmatic007, thanks for the explanation. i am able to understand the line of reasoning you have used here. but somehow i am not clear of when i need to draw a line in my inferencing process. this is my conclusion - i am not going to work anymore on these wierd CR problems if they are typical LSAT type.

i would rather spend my time on GMAT+ or anything else that is more relevant to GMAT. thanks.

Roberts is accused of a crime, and Edwards is the

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