BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Jury vs judges

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

Jury vs judges

by 2010gmat » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:29 am
Civil trials often involve great complexities that are beyond the capacities of jurors to understand. As a result, jurors' decisions in such trials are frequently incorrect. Justice would therefore be better served if the more complex trials were decided by judges rather than juries.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) A majority of civil trials involve complexities that jurors are not capable of understanding.
(B) The judges who would decide complex civil trials would be better able to understand the complexities of those trials than jurors are.
(C) The judges who would preside over civil trials would disallow the most complex sorts of evidence from being introduced into those trials.
(D) Jurors' decisions are frequently incorrect even in those civil trials that do not involve great complexities.
(E) The sole reason in favor of having juries decide civil trials is the supposition that their decisions will almost always be correct.

Why A is not the answer? Is it because it is already stated as the premise or for some other reason??
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:51 am
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:690

Re: Jury vs judges

by Ludacrispat26 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:23 am
2010gmat wrote:
Why A is not the answer? Is it because it is already stated as the premise or for some other reason??
Exactly. The right answer is B because the argument just asserts that judges would do a better job than juries in complex matter. Thus, there's an assumption that the judges are better equipped to deal with these issues than juries are.
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Hi!

And, notice that the Kaplan denial test also kills it. If B were not true--if judges were NOT better able to handle the complexity, then the argument falls apart. This proves that B is a necessary assumption for the argument to hold.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:56 am
2010gmat...
U r posting some wonderful questions..Keep Posting!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:39 am
Actually, I find option E very interesting. What if the purpose of juries in these trials was not for getting the correct decision?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:30 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:710

by Gaurav Yadav » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:43 am
Dear gmat2010,

You seem to be confused between assumption and inference.

Note that although both assumption and inference are unstated in the argument, the flow pattern is as follows:

1) Assumption

Premise --> assumption --> conclusion

2) Inference

Premise(s) --> inference

It can be seen that any thing that can be derived from the information given(premises) is an inference. But something that affects the conclusion( or without which conclusion cannot stand) is an assumption.

in this particular question , choice A is an inference ( though it is a little exaggerated by use of majority of cases) which can be derived from the first two sentences.

choice B is an assumption without which the conclusion that the judges would perform better would not hold true.

You may like reading Powerscore's critical reasoning bible for detailed study of assumptions and inferences. It has got some good text.

Hope that helps you.. thanks.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1