If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros

Question

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the prosecution is able to get a prestigious firm to take their case, then the defendant's chances will be greatly weakened, and he will most likely be given a lengthy sentence. But Charles Chase, a powerful witness for the defense, will only cooperate if Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious law firm takes the prosecution's case.

Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

A. Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant.

B. The defendant will get a lengthy sentence.

C. A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case.

D. Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense.

E. Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant.

bschool83 · Accepted Answer

B is an outcome and we are supposed to identify a reasoning leading up the outcome. B is a distortion.

Here is my approach:

The question stems with many negative words tend to be confusing. I approach such questions a bit differently. I try to combine two negative words into a positive... sort of mathematically (-*-=+)

GMAT question stem: Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

My interpretation: If defendant's chances are slightly strengthened, then which of the following must be false?

In order for the defendant to win, Elvira Johnson should testify and the prestigious firm should take the prosecution's case, because that's when Charles Chase will cooperate. Charles Chase not cooperating will strengthen defendant's chances, because it means Elvira Johnson must not be testifying and the prestigious firm must not be prosecution's case.

So immediately pick D.

fluke · Answer

What does "their" refer to. Anyway,

Definitely true: Charles Chase didn't cooperate with the defense.

"Charles Chase" will testify only if "Elvira Johnson & prestigious firm" complies. The defendant didn't get long term; it means "Charles Chase" didn't cooperate. Because, had he complied, the defendant must have gotten long term, because other two prerequisites "Elvira Johnson testimony & firm's association" would be true at the time of his testimony.

Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant.
>Not necessarily false. firm and Charles may have turned their backs.

The defendant will get a lengthy sentence.
>Question says; case NOT greatly weakened. Defendant may not get long term.

A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case.
>Elvira J and Charles may not have complied.

Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense.
>Elvira & Firm-true
If this option true: case will greatly weakened. Thus, this can't be true.

Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant.
>Okay!!! How about the other two?

Ans: "D"

crick20002002 · Answer

I arrived at D using Conditional Reasoning.

From the argument,

EJ AND Prestigious firm ------> CC -----> Defendant chances weakened AND most likely Lengthy sentence

Contrapositive of this is

~Defendant chances weakened OR ~most likely Lengthy sentence ---> ~CC ---> ~EJ OR ~Prestigious firm 
 
From the contrapositive, the only thing that can be false is "Charlie Chase will Cooperate with the defence."

mourinhogmat1 · Answer

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the prosecution is able to get a prestigious firm to take their case, then the defendant's chances will be greatly weakened, and he will most likely be given a lengthy sentence. But Charles Chase, a powerful witness for the defense, will only cooperate if Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious law firm takes the prosecution's case.

E.J. AGAINST defence + prestigious firm takes prosecution case --> defendant chance weakened --> lengthy sentence
E.J testify + prestigious firm ---> CC witneess ---> FOR defence.

In other words, CC will testify only if first statement holds true.

Under these circumstances, if the defendant's chances are NOT greatly weakened, then which of the following must be false?

Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant. ---- WEAKENED
The defendant will get a lengthy sentence. ----- ??
A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case. --- WEAKENED
Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense. ----- WEAKENED
Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant. ----- WEAKENED

I am going with B. Can anyone tell me whats wrong with this...or tell me whats the OA.

Its a great problem!!

In all

petrifiedbutstanding · Answer

I picked D.

My reasoning was this:
If the defendant's chances are NOT weakened then some or all of the following cases (without going into the answers as yet) must be true:
1. Elvira Johnson might not have testified
2. A prestigious firm has not been able to take up the case
3. Charles Chase may not have cooperated
4. The victim may not be given a long sentence

Now coming to answer choices:
A. Elvira Johnson testifies against the defendant --> We can't be sure. If this is so, then you can't definitively say the prosecution has been successful in finding a good law firm.
B. The defendant will get a lengthy sentence --> This is a consequence. If we picked this, we would be going beyond the scope of the argument to state that there is another element influencing the sentence. Therefore, wrong.
C. A prestigious firm will take the prosecution's case --> Again, you can't say whether this definitely false without ruling out the other two options
 D. Charles Chase will cooperate with the defense --> This will be the tipping point in the case. If E.J. testified, if the prosecution succeeded in getting the right law firm, and if Charles Chase cooperated, then the defendant's chances are going to be greatly reduced. 
E. Elvira Johnson might testify against the defendant --> This can be misleading, but ultimately would lead nowhere.

DevilDoggNC · Answer

Highly doubt this is a GMAT Prep question...this has the smell, flavor and taste of an LSAT question...Plus the logic used in this type of question is tested frequently on the LSAT...But that said -- lately I keep hearing that GMAC's CR questions are stretching the limits and are no longer sticking to the standard assumption, weaken/strengthen, inference and flaw questions.

Shoumik · Answer

So they give out more resolve the paradox type questions and boldface?

DevilDoggNC · Answer

This is purely subjective -- so take it with a big scoop of salt. These are observations I have gathered from some colleagues and friends who have taken the GMAT within the last year or so. 
 
Yes -- definitely more Boldface questions -- especially if you are doing well. A couple of my friends took the test a few weeks back -- and both mentioned they hardly saw 2, 3 or 4 strengthen / weaken questions tops. And even those were questions with "all of the following except" constructions. One of them said she got at least a couple of "evaluate the plan" and "the author is most likely to agree with all of the following except" type of questions.

Another interesting observation -- One of them said he saw just one probability question and zero combination questions (Quant 48). The general feedback was that co-ordinate geometry, number properties -- especially prime number, consecutive numbers, even-odd and integer properties, functions, percents and exponents seem to hold "high-value".

WillEconomistGMAT · Answer

Simply put, choice D is the only one that definitively rules out both of the circumstances that lead to the weakened case.

Fdambro294 · Answer

Seems about right. The question is getting into a lot of formal logic along with the idea of an “AND” statement as the sufficient condition.

Either a really high level question or more of an LSAT question.

The key is that BOTH of the events linked by the “AND” in the sufficient condition statement must occur for the necessary condition to occur.

Posted from my mobile device

Nums99 · Answer

OFFICIAL ANSWER :

Identify the Question Type:

The question provides a set of circumstances that will be used to support the answer chosen. That makes this an Inference question. However, unlike most Inference questions, this one asks for something that must be false, rather than something that must be true. And it also must be false taking into account the additional condition in the question stem: if the defendant's chances are not weakened.

Untangle the Stimulus:

The stimulus gives some causal relationships. If Elvira Johnson testifies and a prestigious firm takes the case for the prosecution, then the defendant's chances will be weakened. Furthermore, Charles Chase will only testify if Elvira does and a prestigious firm does.

Predict the Answer:

If Chase cooperates, Elvira must testify and a prestigious firm must take the prosecution's case — the last sentence states these are the only conditions under which Chase will cooperate. Combine that with the first sentence: these conditions will greatly weaken the defendant's chances. Therefore, if, as the stem mandates, the defendant's chances are not greatly weakened, then Chase must not cooperate.

Evaluate the Choices:

(D) matches the prediction and is correct. It must be false, because if Chase cooperates, the defendant’s case would be weakened.

(A) is not necessarily false. The defendant's chances are weakened if Elvira testifies and a prestigious firm takes the case. If the defendant's chances are not weakened, Elvira could still testify -- there just wouldn't be a prestigious firm on the case.

(B) might be tempting at first; However, this is about chances. If the defendant's chances are weakened, he'll "most likely" get a longer sentence. However, even if the chances are not weakened, there's still a chance of a long sentence. It may not be "most likely," but it can't be ruled out.

(C) is not necessarily false. The defendant's chances are weakened if Elvira testifies and a prestigious firm takes the case. If the defendant's chances are not weakened, a prestigious firm could have still taken the case -- it may just be that Elvira didn't testify.

(E) only talks of Elvira possibly testifying; this would need to be known for sure (along with other information) to know if the defendant's chances are weakened, so this is incorrect.

TAKEAWAY: The right answer here depended on an important aspect of cause and effect relationships. If a cause always leads to an effect, then knowing that the effect didn't happen means that the cause didn't happen either.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros

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

If Elvira Johnson agrees to testify against the defendant and the pros

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