Strengthen

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:2 members

Strengthen

by hey_thr67 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:05 am
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect's conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase. The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect's flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible?
(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.
(E) In all cases in which a person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person

OA is C

How do you reason this problem. Why not D ?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:20 am
The problem with D is that there's nothing in the argument about flight being a criminal act. The actual crime was possession of an illegal weapon, and the flight was simply the reason that the police gave chase.

A--depends on what the other "significant factors" are

B--the argument is concerned with the legality of the chase, not fleeing

C--correct, since the judge argues that the chase was illegal because flight itself doesn't create reasonable suspicion

D--covered above

E--can we really extrapolate to "all cases"? I don't think we can.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:06 am
beautiful question!

certainly a 700 level question!

Thanks for posting ! whats the source?
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)