Question Description
Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argumenta)takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that bodyb)presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that bodyc)fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discreditedd)offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similaritiese)draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.