Some people have questioned the judge’s objectivity in cases of sex

Here is the argument:

Premises:
Some people have questioned the judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women.
But the record shows that in sixty percent of such cases, the judge has decided in favor of the women.
Conclusion:
So the judge has not discriminated against women in cases of sex discrimination against women.

The conclusion has assuming something. Why does 60% in favour of women mean no discrimination? It is probably saying that in more than 50% cases, the judge favoured the woman so he is not biased against women. But here is my problem - what if women were right in 90% of the cases? Then in 30% cases, he favoured men unfairly. So we cannot conclude that the judge has not discriminated against women.

The question asks for a flaw. What we discussed above is the flaw.

(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
Actual number of cases is immaterial. We are only discussing percentages here.

(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
The point is whether this judge is objective or not. Whether many judges are not objective is irrelevant.

(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
The argument talks about "judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women". What happens in other cases is irrelevant.

(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
How the cases reached him is irrelevant.

(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women
Exactly. If there is reason to believe that women are right in say 90% cases, 60% is a poor figure. It doesn't imply that the judge is objective. This is the flaw.

Answer (E)
_________________

(a) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
So what? Let it be! We are not looking for number of cases comes into the Judge's plate.

(b) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
Doesn't explain whether Judge is wrong or right.

C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
The argument is not worrying about non sex discrimination cases.

(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
Still, this doesn't prove whether judge is wrong or right.

(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women
Yep. This answer shows that the judge has discrimination against women!

most of the answers weaken the judges fairness, but E does so most seriously!

i was not very firm with E initially, but i see that when i compare this with other options, E works out best.
And was then happy to see that other folks have also opted for C.

only two possibilities here.Either woman should have won in those cases or judges should be biased to give it to women.

A and E does the same.

E is better choice and hence a winner.

E shows that the women should have won but not won due to judges' discrimination in such cases thus weakened the statement that the judges are not biased.

(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
Not related to the argument
(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
Not related to the argument
(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
Not related to the argument
(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
May be.... but not related to the judge =>wrong
(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women
Correct.

hey all..
can`t we say that if the cases have been appealed from lower court then judges might have discriminated against women (in lower court)and as a result, these cases are now in judge`s court(may be upper court)

kindly reply

thanku

But it is not clear who re appealed in higher court. if women then yes but if men then NO.
So, This answer is open to interpretation and can go either way.

not very clear with your line of thought since it is already mentioned in the option "cases against women"..so how can it be an open statement..

Ok. I will give another shot.
the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court.

There are two parties in court i.e defendant and prosecutor.Both can re-appeal in higher court if they are not satisfied with outcome in lower court.The statement just tells the cases were re-appealed in higher court, It doesn't mention who re appealed i.e prosecutor or defendant !
Case 1 : Judgement in lower court might have in favor of women more than it should have been and the defendant(other party) re appealed in higher court.
Case 2: Judgement in lower court might have in AGAINST women more than it should have been and the prosecutor re appealed in higher court.

As both contradictory thoughts are possible interpretation of the statement.Hence , it fails to find the flaw in reasoning.


Please let me know if i was able to explain or if there is a flaw in my reasoning.Reply with kudos if it helped:)

(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
--- Not getting to any result
(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
--- Again we can not conclude from the option as it present general view
(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
--- Out of scope
(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
--- This does not put light on whether men have appealed (in this case judges in lower court favoured decision for women) or women have apealed (in this case judges provided decision against woment in lower court) in higher court
(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women

--- This option only opens the idea that there could have more been more percentage of women winning the cases but because of the judges' discrimination this percentage limited only to the sixty percent

Some people have questioned the judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women. But the record shows that in sixty percent of such cases, the judge has decided in favor of the women. This record demonstrates that the judge has not discriminated against women in cases of sex discrimination against women.

Here's what the argument stem is saying.
SOME people have questioned the judge's objectivity.
BUT, records show that the judge has decided in favor of the women in 60% of the cases.
Conclusion - The record demonstrates that the judge HAS NOT discriminated against women.


We need to find a fault in the above argument that the judge HAS NOT discriminated against women. In other words, we need to weaken the argument presented above.



This doesn't help us determine whether the judge discriminated, or he didn't. This just tells us how a large number of the cases arose. This is a trick option, but is incorrect. OUT!


We are talking about 1 judge. This one is too general, and is irrelevant. OUT!



This has nothing to do with the argument presented above. OUT



How the cases reach the judge is irrelevant to the argument. OUT!



This attacks the conclusion by stating that on the contrary, the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than 60% of the cases involving sex discrimination against women.
So E is the answer.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Thanks akshayk for the thorough explanation!

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, feel free to use the request verbal experts' reply button.
_________________

Some people have questioned the judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women. But the record shows that in sixty percent of such cases, the judge has decided in favor of the women. This record demonstrates that the judge has not discriminated against women in cases of sex discrimination against women.


Type- Flaw
Boil it down - Since the judge has given 60 % of decisions in favor of women , the judge has not discriminated against women in cases of sex discrimination against women.
- The argument is flawed because it wants us to assume that 60% is a high number . But what if more than 60 % - say 90% of the cases should have been in favor of women.


(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women - Irrelevant - % is provided so number is irrelevant
(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women - Irrelevant
(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination - Out of scope
(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court - Irrelevant
(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women - Correct

Answer E
_________________

The correct answer is option E.

Let us see why.

Conclusion here: The judge has been objective i.e. has not discriminated against women

Author's logic:
1. In 60% of the cases, the judge decided in favour of the women.

What is the flaw in this argument?
The author has assumed that just because the judge has decided a majority of the cases, 60% in this case, in favour of women, he has not discriminated.

But - how do we know whether this is a proper basis for making such a claim?

For instance, what if in reality, if the judge was truly objective, 80% or 90% of the cases would have been decided favourable to women?

The Flaw: The author ignores the possibility that women would have won more than 60% of these cases, if the decisions were truly objective, unbiased, with no discrimination.


(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
Actual number of cases is immateral - remember, we are dealing with percentages in this question. This only tells us that a big chunk of the judge's cases were cases with allegations of sex discrimination against women.

(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
How difficult judges find it to be objective - irrelevant. What matters is whether this particular judge was truly objective.

(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
Cases that do not involve sex discrimination. Completely irrelevant to the argument about whether the judge was objective with cases involving sex discrimination

(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
Irrelevant - the mechanism/how these cases reached the judge

(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women
As per prethinking

Hope this helps.
_________________

egmat KarishmaB
Can you please explain the meaning of A?

Sneha2021

A is just saying that the judge has heard many such cases, so it suggests that the 60% is not just a fluke of small numbers. But it gives us no additional information to determine whether 60% is a fair rate. If all of the women's cases were valid, then the judge might still be discriminating (or just doing a poor job). Whereas, if only 60% or fewer of the cases should have been decided in favor of the woman, then it's fair to use the 60% rate to suggest that the judge is not discriminating against women.
_________________

The question talks about the judge's objectivity in a certain type of cases.
What type of cases are we talking about? Cases involving "sex discrimination against women" (women not getting equal pay, or not getting promoted because they are women etc.)

The argument further says that since in 60% of such cases, the judge favoured the woman, he is not discriminating.

(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women

This option says that the judge gets many cases of this type (cases involving "sex discrimination against women" ).
Does it matter to the argument? We are talking about the percentage of cases in which he favoured the women. Does the actual number of cases matter (that he got 10 cases of this type or 100 cases of this type)?
It doesn't hence (A) is not the answer.
_________________