|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
63
[0], given: 25
|
Quote: In the earliest stages of the common law, a party could have a case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court, and then only if the case fit within one of the forms for which there existed a writ. At first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small, but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues. Which of the following conclusions is most strongly suggested by the paragraph above?
(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner INCORRECT. Out of scope. No reason to believe this.
(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailedINCORRECT. Nothing mentioned that benefits either of them
(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executiveINCORRECT. No mention of the comparative powers of the judiciary with the legislature
(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerationsCORRECT. Mentions in the role of the judges in bringing more cases that brought revenue
(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law.INCORRECT. Out of scope.No suggestion of inconsistency or coherence to common body of law
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 39
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
The revenue piece is the key -- I missed this on first reading as it's the last sentence, but it's the important takeaway from the stimulus. D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 93
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 6
|
D.
This is a "Find a conclusion question" as is very clear from the question stem
In such questions we need to make sure that the conclusion is closely related to what is said in the passage, does not assume much outside of the context of the passage and is based on the facts/assumptions stated in the passage. There are two facts stated:
1) Cases were taken only a) after a fee was deposited and b) if a form existed based on a writ
2) Judges increased number of cases by creating new forms that also increased revenue
Both facts point to monetary considerations.
D supports this assertion
Other options are asking a lot to assume outside of the passage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 230
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 2
|
Has to be D as that is the only answer that deals with the economic basis of the statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 4
Location: Chennai
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Answer Choice is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 22
|
I got - D
_________________
Kudos if any of my post helps you !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Status: Bring the Rain
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 410
Location: United States (MD)
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: Michigan (Ross) - Class of 2014
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.13
WE: Corporate Finance (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 267
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 24
|
I agree with some of you when you say D isn't the best choice. Having said that it is closer to the correct answer than E because nowhere in the argument does it imply that decisions were inconsistent. Yes, it does contain a statement about the limited number of forms, which can lead to an assumption that decisions were inconsistent. But in that statement it also says, "a party could have a case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court, and then only if the case fit within one of the forms for which there existed a writ", which could also lead to an assumption that such cases were rejected. However as for revenue, there is direct reference to the small revenues initially collected which leads us to D.
_________________
petrifiedbutstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 198
Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 15
|
D
_________________
You want somethin', go get it. Period!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 18
|
1+ for D.
_________________
Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam
Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/AndyTranHung
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 190
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 20
|
Clearly D as it says about "early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations" in line with increased revenues and more cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 141
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 12
|
D. The rest are out of scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
83
[0], given: 35
|
Poor question. Actually, I do not get any information from the argument except the final sentence. I chose E, but also very confuse with choice D  .
_________________
Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 67
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 8
|
Eliminate the wrong answers instead of trying to prove the correct one. Worry about reasoning only if there are contenders. The incorrect answers are not even close to the correct one. Easy question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 85
Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 15
|
Premise: Before, a case could be heard by paying $$ + if the case fell under a category for which forms existed.
Few cases were there in the beginning, but later judges increased the number of forms
More cases fell under more categories + more money
Which of the following conclusions is most strongly suggested by the paragraph above?
(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner. Irrelevant
(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed. We cannot say this is true. Nothing about the two sides of the case is mentioned.
(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive. Irrelevant
(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations. Correct.
(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law. Irrelevant. Nothing about 'coherence' is mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
Posts: 32
Schools: HBS, Yale, Darden, Haas
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
+1 D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2012
Posts: 79
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 17
|
I think this is an assumption question.
The assumption D is just a rewording of the 2 premises which is not directly stated.
Notice the economic considerations given in D points to the fee imposed by the court. Hence the best answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Never ever give up on yourself.Period.
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
Posts: 134
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 570 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V33
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 31
|
of course the D option paraphrases the last line of the factset... Economic considerations....all other choices seemed irrelevent to me...got it right... :) Posted from my mobile device 
_________________
Don't give up on yourself ever. Period.
Beat it, no one wants to be defeated (My journey from 570 to 690) : beat-it-no-one-wants-to-be-defeated-journey-570-to-149968.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 3
|
Straightaway D, pretty easy one. (A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner. - Irrelevant, nowhere mentioned.(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed. - Not mentioned. either sides could have their case heard.(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive. Irrelevant(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations. Bingo.At first the number ....was very small, but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues. (E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law. Irrelevant, nowhere mentioned.
_________________
What happens with me is less significant than what happens within me!
Consider giving Kudos, appreciation is divine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2012
Posts: 4
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 36
|
gmatavenue wrote: [P1] party could have a case only upon the payment
[P2] if the case fit a writ.
[P3] formalized cases of action was very small
[P4] judges invented new forms
[P5] brought more cases and greater revenues
The above are set of premises and the conclusion should
sum up all the premises.
(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
arbitrary and haphazard manner ? Does some premise state that. May be
they were organized thats the reason they took the case which had
written writ.
(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.
(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or
the executive.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.
(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was
economic considerations.
Yes , It kind of concludes why "party could have a case only upon the payment",
why "judges invented new forms" , to get in more money.
It seems to be the soul movitation for the expansion in judiciary system.
(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did
not form a coherent body of law.
Inconsistent and Incoherent ?? Which premise states that ? Even if true, doesn't
really conclude anything. Agreed. The conclusion states "which brought more cases and greater revenues". Therefore we need to focus on that particular option which highlights both the facts (1) More Cases and (2) More Money (revenue). Option D does include both these points " expansion in judicial power was economic considerations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
