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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 04:00

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

Bold FACE - Criminologist

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 274
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 04:54
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

82% (02:08) correct 18% (01:10) wrong based on 9 sessions
[Please, just don't shoot Answers or letters:) Explanations please.]

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.


In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 05:08
I would go with 'B'
The first is not the main conclusion of the argument so 'C' & 'D' can be eliminated.
The first in not a generalization but the conclusion of some legislators so 'E' can be eliminated.
So between 'A' & 'B' - the latter part is the conclusion of the argument so will go with 'B'
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 06:52
I believe it is (E).

What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime.
The bold portion is talking about the exceptional cases according to me.

The argument says that in these cases the policy has no effect because the elderly people will rarely commit third crime. No question of third crime here. If third crime cannot occur then what is the point in having a policy in place. However the second part of argument is talking about only elderly people and does not prove if the elderly people are majority of criminals. The policy is supposed to cover crimnals of all ages and not just one group.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 10:40
First I tend to go for (B). But on a second thought, (E) seems to contain much more detail. However, I am very suspicious about the use of the word "generalization". Also, the word "apply" sounds not right because we dont really talk about the "applicability", but "effectiveness" of a certain plan.

In test day, I would go straight up for (B). But I think (E) is better here.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1447
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 11:42
I pick "E". "E" clearly talks abt a policy while "B" talks abt a conclusion, I don't think first part can be considered as a conclusion, it is more like an argument by some senators generalizing the policy.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 274
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 12:37
Paul?? what do you think?
Please assist.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 296
Location: California
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 12:50
I was able to narrow it down to B or E and must go wth B....

A - The first part of it is right in that it is a conclusion (that legislators came to) but the second part is wrong because the claim is antithetical to that conclusion not in support of it.

B - The same first part as A which is correct and the second part is the main conclusion which ultimately refutes the first..hence itis correct..IMHO


C and D state the first part is the main conclusion when it is not so I was able to rule it out

E - I had a hard time ruling out E but finally I believed the second part of the argument to be more of a conclusion than exceptional cases in response to a generaliztion..
_________________

"No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 12:58
pb_india, if you have the OA kindly post it
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2251
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 14:21
Ok, now where have I seen this question? Hmmm ...

Anyways, the answer I would choose is B.

(E) is definitely out. There's nowhere the author talked about exceptional cases. The argument goes like this. If people have served two (long) sentences for severe crimes they would be quite old and are unlikely to commit more than one additional crime. In other words, they might commit their third crime, but it is unlikely they would commit the fourth one. Therefore it doesn't make sense to put them into the prison for life after they committed the third crime, since they are not going to commit any more crimes anyway.

It is not talking about exceptional cases for elderly people. It is talking about all criminals who have served two long sentences and who would commit a third crime.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

 [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2005, 18:06
why not D?

the first is the central argument, the second is a prediction of the effect of this policy?


B looked nice...
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2005, 13:52
pb_india wrote:
Paul?? what do you think?
Please assist.



Hi,

Are you still waiting for Paul ? If you post the answers it might start a new discussion. Or you can PM him and get his attention.

Cheers,
Anand.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2251
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2005, 15:20
pb_india wrote:
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.


The main conclusion of the argument is NOT that such policy would reduce crime. In fact it is the opposite of it.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 394
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 26 Feb 2005, 09:17
I am getting B as the answer.

E is a contender only because of its ambiguous verbosity.

First of all, I see no generalization and any exception taken to such generalization.

It is obvious that there is one opinionated conclusion which the author would like to refute with his reasoning.

So, it has to be B. Await OA.

pb_india wrote:
[Please, just don't shoot Answers or letters:) Explanations please.]

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.


In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.

_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 561
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Feb 2005, 16:53
OK guys i'm having a crazy day here. I have been clubbing in the last 3 hrs and i just attempted 3 CR's (still in the club) and offcourse i failed all. :lol:

Well, i'll go (B) with this one.
My contribution today until I get serious again tomorrow.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Feb 2005, 17:21
I'll go for B
E says mentions "exceptional" cases where the generalization does not apply but it is not what the counter-argument is saying.

Quote:
What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime


In the above, we are talking about people who have served to sentences in general. This is NOT an exceptional case by any means since it is explicitly said that 2nd term inmates do not commit crimes again.

B perfectly says that first bold is one of the conclusion while second is the main conclusion that goes counter to the first one and which the author is trying to support
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3281
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Feb 2005, 20:29
B

I agree with Paul that E is not asserted as an exception but a fundamental problem with the "three strikes" law.
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: doing good things...
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1245
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.77
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 157

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 531

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 01 May 2011, 11:51
Both boldface parts of the arguments are conclusions.
Only B fits.

Nice explanations guys.
_________________

Follow me, if you find my explanations useful.

Audaces fortuna juvat!

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1364
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 10

Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 03 May 2011, 00:08
B fits perfectly well. 1st statement is refuted and 2nd is a conclusion of criminologist.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Never give up!
Affiliations: Beta Gamma Sigma, Omicron Delta Epsilon, Toastmasters Intl, HHonors
Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 224
Location: Raleigh-Durham NC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 27

Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist [#permalink] New post 05 May 2011, 09:59
Logically IMHO the answer is B.

I broke it up into "statements" and then did T/F:

FOR "A"
- "The first is a conclusion taht the argument as a whole seeks to refute" = Yes
- "The second is a claim that had been advanced in support of that concluson" = No

FOR "B"
- "The first is a conclusion taht the argument as a whole seeks to refute" = Yes
- "The second is the main conclusion of the argument" = Yes

FOR "C"
- "The first is the main conclusion of the argument" = Definitely Not
- "The second is an objection that has been raised against that argument" = Yes (it's an objection) but No (not to the argument in this answer choice)

FOR "D"
- "The first is the main conclusion of the argument" = Definitely Not
- "The second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion" = Definitelly Not, as the second is a refutation

FOR "E"
- "The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument" = Yes, but likeliness is not certain
- "The second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply" = No, as the argument is how in *general* the policy won't work

If there's any hole in my reasoning, I welcome comments. As I can benefit from it too. :-)
(Thanks in advance!)
_________________

= = = = = = = = = =

If you liked my post, please consider a Kudos for me. Thanks!

Re: Bold FACE - Criminologist   [#permalink] 05 May 2011, 09:59
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
bold face arjtryarjtry 8 07 Sep 2008, 04:17
Bold Face bhatiagp 1 03 Mar 2008, 04:33
Bold Face - Electricity pb_india 26 21 May 2005, 04:01
Bold Face Question anirban16 1 17 Mar 2005, 18:39
bold face questions bozo190101 0 18 Feb 2005, 01:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Bold FACE - Criminologist

  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®.