Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants

Question

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client.

(B) Defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings may refuse to answer questions that are self‐incriminating.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant.

(E) A defendant’s legal counsel has the right to question the plaintiff.

auradediligodo · Accepted Answer

Option B

We have one plaintiff and 3 codefendants that we will call C1,C2 and C3. Each of these codefendants have a legal counsel that we will call L1, L2 and L3.
C1 and C2 have the same legal counsel so that the new list of legal counsels is L1, L1 and L2.

The argument states that the plaintiff asks to question each codefendants one by one and the only extra person who is allowed to be there is the codefendant's legal counsel. The other legal counsels are not allowed to be in the courtroom.

The judge denies the request.

Clearly in this scenario C1 and C2, who share the legal counsel L1, would not be able to bring their own legal counsel to the courtroom.

Falsification scenario: what if each codefendant is allowed to represent himself without a legal counsel? Clearly the argument breaks.
  Assumption  : A legal counsel must always be present when the defendant is questioned

akshay0542 · Answer

in this question 'their" counseller isn ot allowed
let c1 & c2 share same counseller athen counseller of C3 can be present then how option b is correct ?
Also i am not able to understand correctly so can you pls explain each of the option and wy they are wrong

AnirudhaS · Answer

Crystal clear explanation. Thanks. i was thinking in the same lines, however could not reach the conclusion.

auradediligodo · Answer

Read carefully, the argument says that the plaintiff ask to question  EACH  codefendant. So while in one case it would be possible, in the others it would not.

apurv09 · Answer

Here's my take on this. since the plantiff asks to question the defendant without the co- defendant or the co defendant's consel.
since two have common counsel, it will be possible only when the defendant is questioned alone , since the counsel is common.

Hence B will be correct to support the judge's conclusion

Yellkrishna · Answer

The plaintiff’s request cannot be granted because the request contradicts with the requirement that a defendant can have his counsel with him during interrogation. Since the plaintiff asked for the counsel of codefendant be not be present, there is a conflict.

A. The bone of contention is not whether information given to counsel can be revealed to the court.

B. This succinctly describes the conundrum.

C. Out of scope.

D. The judge denied the appeal not because the right of the plaintiff is same as or different from the defendant but because there is a conflict of the request with the rules.

E. No information is given regarding this issue.

Posted from my mobile device

bonbonzzz · Answer

"The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present."

Is it saying that the plaintiff wants to question each defendant without their codefendant, or each defendant without their codefendants' legal counsel

or

plaintiff want so to question each defendant without their codefendant, or each defendant with their legal counsel present?

What's the right way to interpret "or" work in this sentence?

NunuBot · Answer

Perhaps reframing the question would make it easier to understand.

Principal: 
- The case before me involves a victim and three bullies. 
- The victims asks to speak to each bully without the other bullies or the other bullies' parents present. 
- However two of the bullies are siblings (and share a parent)
- And the school cannot ask any student to change their parents
- The school cannot grant the victim's request

The clearest answer is B - if the bullies have the right to have their parents present, then the school would have to let the same one parent be present in two of the conversation with the bullies. In this case, there is no way for the school to enfoce the victim's request, therefore the victim's request is dismissed.

Hope this clear things up a little

Posted from my mobile device

apurvag95 · Answer

C – The Request by plaintiff that each defendant be questioned w/o his co-defendants or legal counsel cannot be granted
P – 1 plaintiff and 3 co-defendants and 2 have common legal council
As co-defendant and other co-defendant’s legal councils are not allowed, we need the defendant’s legal council to be present, this cannot be done when 2 co-defendants share one legal counsel.
Hence the Ans is B

unraveled · Answer

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants. The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants’ legal counsel being present. Two of the codefendants, however, share the same legal counsel. The court will not order any codefendant to find new legal counsel. Therefore, the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

The conclusion of the judge’s argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

(A) A court cannot issue an order that  forces legal counsel to disclose information revealed by a client . - WRONG. 2nd best. But revealing info is not solving the situation as in why court cannot order.

(B) Defendants have the  right to have their legal counsel present  when being questioned. - CORRECT. If they didn't had then court could have ordered.

(C) People being questioned in legal proceedings  may refuse to answer questions  that are self‐incriminating. - WRONG. Like D only. Not answering anything relevant.

(D) A plaintiff in a legal case should  never be granted a right that is denied to a defendant . - WRONG. Why court will not be able to order is not answered.

(E) A defendant’s  legal counsel has the right  to question the plaintiff. - WRONG. It's not about the legal counsel's right.

Answer B.

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants

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

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants

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