Plaintiff's lawyer: The judge in this case recently went on a skiing weekend with a small group that included the defendant. Moreover, before the case arose, the judge's family occasionally received complimentary tickets to theater and sporting events from the defendant's company. So, even if the judge's avowal that the case was never discussed during the skiing weekend is accurate, her connections with the defendant raise doubts about whether she can decide it impartially. She should do the right thing and step down from the case.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the plaintiff's lawyer's argument?
A. Because they are human, judges should not ever be expected to be completely
impartial in deciding a case.
B. Judges should always disqualify themselves from cases in which any reasonable
question can be raised about their impartiality.
C. A judge's claim that she has not discussed a case with one of the parties to it should
be viewed with suspicion if the judge has received something of value from that party.
D. A judge should step down from a case if there is clear evidence that the judge has
been unfairly influenced by one of the parties to it.
32E. A judge should never accept items of value from someone who is a defendant in a case over which she is presiding
GMAT备考误区 | 小白备考千万别掉这些坑！！！