Arguing for the acquittal of his client from

Question

Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

A The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach.
B Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours – the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours.
C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
D The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party.
E In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50.

Maniky · Answer

Please tell why D can't be the answer.

Posted from my mobile device

v12345 · Answer

A. Incorrect. The element that is not parallel to the question argument is that the city administration itself takes the blame and does not transfer the blame to another entity.

B. Incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. A flawed judgment is not drawn. Since commuting by rail and bus are the only two options for John, he must have faced hard-time with commuting during the rush hours when the railroad was on strike and the number of buses was not sufficient during the rush hours.

C. Correct. Though Amy performed exceedingly well, it does not mean that her other co-participants did not perform exceedingly well; they all could have performed exceedingly well. They all or at least three could have been at least marginally better than Amy. If this is so, Amy does not have a chance to win Gold. This a perfect parallel flawed argument.

D. Incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. The evidence suggests that either some team members or a third party may have executed the financial fraud, which is valid reasoning.

E. Incorrect. There is no flaw in the argument. This is a quantitative argument. Note that the weighted average of the two groups' averages can neither be greater than the greater of the two averages nor be smaller than the smaller of the two averages.

Hence, OA is (C).

Kanika3agg · Answer

lets see the reasoning of the stimulus first:-
In order to acquit his client of murder
attorney grasped the fact that neither door of the garage of main house was bolted
So, thief must have trespassed and killed the wife accidentally.

So, the attorney picked one fact and made that the only possible conclusion based on that fact.
Now, we have to find the reasoning which matches this reasoning.

A The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach. -  This doesnt present any hypothesis as it accepts the issue.

B Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours – the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours. -  In this, he drew a conclusion based on looking at all the possible scenarios and facts. The fact that only two modes are used by John helps us in making our possible scenarios only two and then negating both of them to come to the conclusion. So, not a reasoning parallel to our stimulus.

C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold. - In this, we came to the conclusion that amy won gold just because she performed exceedingly well. A fact that could have led to other possibilities but we chose the possibility that it led Amy to win Gold. Parallel to our reasoning where they grasped one fact and presented it as the only conclusion.

D The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party. - This is similar to the scenario that was presented above but has different reasoning altogether. It first shows that based on evidence, the crime was not committed by A or B so it can be concluded that it could have been done by C or D. This reasoning is good enough because it is removing someone from suspect list not by blaming some other factor but based on evidence and then moving to suspect other people which is not the case in our stimulus.

E In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50.- This is based on the principle of average so no hypothesis here.

YashYashkratos · Answer

no hate but lsat questions are so much logical and have crisp a reasoning to them.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her.

Evidence - neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted
Conclusion - The client must be acquitted.

Flaw - 
1. Maybe the client murdered the wife and then opened the door and garage to make it look like a theft. 
2. Did anyone notice the thief, or is there any camera visual?
3. Was there any evidence of confrontation? 
4. What is the surety that the outsider has to be a thief?

So, the flaw is 
1. The premises don't support the conclusion. The client may have been guilty even after the evidence cited, and the conclusion seems dicey. 
2. Citing the evidence and assuming only one possible reason, i.e., the thief entered and murdered, is flawed.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

A The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach. - Here, the city takes the blame and doesn't transfer it. Not parallel.

B Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours – the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours. - no flaw. Not parallel.

C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold. - ok

D The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party.- no flaw. Not parallel.

E In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50. -  no flaw. Not parallel.

enirehtacgogogo · Answer

D why not "was executed by either some team members or a third party OR BOTH". D is flawed because it ignored the possibility that "BOTH"?

gurugmat · Answer

The attorney’s argument is an example of flawed reasoning because it makes a hasty conclusion based on limited evidence. Here's the argument:

The attorney claims that since neither the garage nor the main door was bolted, this must mean a thief entered the home, confronted the wife, and murdered her.
This reasoning is flawed because the conclusion (that a thief must have committed the murder) is not necessarily supported by the fact that the doors were unbolted. There could be many other explanations for the unbolted doors, and the presence of unbolted doors doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion of a murder by a thief.
This is a form of conjecture, where the attorney draws a specific conclusion without sufficient evidence, assuming that one possible scenario must be true while disregarding other equally plausible explanations. 
 "The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach."

This is not analogous to the attorney's argument. The city’s failure to solve both problems is cited as the reason for accepting responsibility, which is a reasonable conclusion. There’s no leap of logic or assumption made here similar to the attorney’s flawed reasoning.
Eliminate.
 "Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours – the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours."

This is a reasonable inference, not a flawed argument. If John’s primary modes of transportation were disrupted, it makes sense to infer that he had difficulty commuting. The conclusion here is cautious (“may have faced”), not an unjustified leap.
Eliminate.
 "In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold."

This is the correct answer because it mirrors the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. The fact that Amy’s co-participants won Silver and Bronze does not logically guarantee that Amy won Gold. There are other possible explanations for her performance, such as there being other participants or an unknown outcome. This is similar to how the attorney concluded that the murder was committed by a thief based solely on the fact that the doors were unbolted—other possibilities are ignored, and the conclusion is prematurely reached.
Keep on hold.
 "The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party."

This reasoning is sound, as it explores all possibilities and concludes logically that the fraud was committed by either some team members or an external party. There’s no hasty or unsupported conclusion here; it follows from the given premises.
Eliminate.
 "In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50."

This is a valid conclusion based on sound reasoning. If neither group has an average score over 50, then the combined average cannot be over 50. There's no flawed reasoning here, as the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Eliminate.

The correct answer is C because it presents the same kind of flawed reasoning as the attorney's argument in the stimulus. Both arguments make a hasty conclusion based on limited evidence, ignoring other plausible explanations or outcomes.

enirehtacgogogo · Answer

D sounds inferior to C no doubt. But cannot agree with "  it explores all possibilities  " because it ignored another possibility "  that the fraud was committed by some members and 3rd party altogether"?

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.

Arguing for the acquittal of his client from

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

Arguing for the acquittal of his client from

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