Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Sep 2014, 02:15

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1102
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 0

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2008, 06:15
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
5. The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [2] , given: 0

Re: CR 1000 9 [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2008, 13:06
2
This post received
KUDOS
I think it is C.

the Argument does not anywhere mention the number of cases affected by the exclusionary rule.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1102
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000 9 [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2008, 20:54
bhatia_ash2002 wrote:
I think it is C.

the Argument does not anywhere mention the number of cases affected by the exclusionary rule.



oa b
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000 9 [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2008, 04:51
I dont understand how.
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [2] , given: 0

Re: CR 1000 9 [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2008, 16:19
2
This post received
KUDOS
marcodonzelli wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
5. The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.


B, beacuse the author talks about the situation when 'the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one' to illustrate or support his argument. However, nowhere in the passage does he mention the frequency of such cases. Therefore, there is no information to say that he assumed most cases were purely technical.
Re: CR 1000 9   [#permalink] 31 Jan 2008, 16:19
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, seekmba 4 14 Mar 2010, 18:56
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, prasun84 3 08 Nov 2008, 03:30
2 Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, vineetgupta 5 09 Nov 2006, 08:13
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, sperinko 7 06 Aug 2006, 07:39
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, prude_sb 15 06 May 2006, 15:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.