It is currently Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:06 am
Image
GMAT ToolKit becomes an open platform for test takers and Prep companies!

Additional 236 questions from our partner Manhattan Review are already available. Update your application for free.

Manhattan Review Discount: Save 10% and free GMAT Club Tests




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Bookmark and Share Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
TAGS:
 Post subject: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:46 pm 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys

Kudos (?): 5 (0), given: 5

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.
(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive.
(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations.
(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
D


Pls explain

_________________
Thanks
rampuria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:39 pm 
Offline
Manager
Manager

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008
Posts: 244

Kudos (?): 10 (0), given: 0

E. OA?

the question stem says,
case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court and then if exists in writ.
Action:
1) first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small.
2)but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues.

To conclude this,
one should properly conclude why cases of action is small and how it got increaced.

E explains clearly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 351

Kudos (?): 12 (0), given: 2

I agree with the explanation above and think the answer is E.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:07 am 
Offline
Manager
Manager
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009
Posts: 123

Kudos (?): 6 (0), given: 2

I got D , but every one other seems to get E.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:21 am 
Offline
Manager
Manager
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009
Posts: 123

Kudos (?): 6 (0), given: 2

[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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:15 am 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager

Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008
Posts: 324

Kudos (?): 5 (0), given: 3

Is it D??

_________________
"CEO in making"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:23 am 
Offline
CEO in training
CEO in training
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008
Posts: 1599

Kudos (?): 42 (0), given: 0

My choice is D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:43 am 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys

Kudos (?): 5 (0), given: 5

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.



Does'nt D have a cause and effect problem. The expansion lead to increased revenues, not the other war around. It is possible that the judges took the initiative to expand the scope of the judiciary for the betterment of citizens, not for economic consideration.

RITULA HELP ME ON THIS.

_________________
Thanks
rampuria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:13 am 
Offline
Manager
Manager
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009
Posts: 123

Kudos (?): 6 (0), given: 2

Could you pl elaborate the cause --> effect problem you see in D. Thanks.
Specially in a conclusion question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:22 am 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys

Kudos (?): 5 (0), given: 5

gmatavenue wrote:
Could you pl elaborate the cause --> effect problem you see in D. Thanks.
Specially in a conclusion question.



What I am trying to ask is how we can conclude that the economic consideration motivated the judges to expand the scope of cases. It could be that the expansion drives of the judges lead to generation of money. The judges could have been paying least attention to the revenues.

Are you getting what I am trying to say?

_________________
Thanks
rampuria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:08 am 
Offline
Manager
Manager
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009
Posts: 123

Kudos (?): 6 (0), given: 2

[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

A careful reading will surely get you [P1] , where it is clear that money was the motive.

So I really cannot decipher your query.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:29 am 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager

Joined: Mon May 26, 2008
Posts: 358

Kudos (?): 29 (0), given: 1

I agree with D

I don't see any cause and effect problem. It states that economic considerations was 'one of the motivating factors'

Cheers,
Unplugged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:55 am 
Offline
CEO in training
CEO in training
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008
Posts: 1599

Kudos (?): 42 (0), given: 0

Rampuria, even if we ignore for a while the casue and effect case, we can easily eliminate other choices as all others are out of scope.
for ex no where is it mentioned or implied that early judges decided cases in arbitrary or haphazard manner.hence A is out.
Similarly other choices are also outr of scope. Now coming to D, since it is mentioned in the argument that cases could be persued only after payment of fees. Jugdes invented new forms which brought new cases and hence more revenues. So it is quite possible that the motive of judges behind bringing more cases was money.

rampuria wrote:
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.



Does'nt D have a cause and effect problem. The expansion lead to increased revenues, not the other war around. It is possible that the judges took the initiative to expand the scope of the judiciary for the betterment of citizens, not for economic consideration.

RITULA HELP ME ON THIS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
Math & Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Math & Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008
Posts: 1575

Kudos (?): 101 (0), given: 1

To me, E was never a contender. No way we can make a conclusion that the first decsions were incoherent and inconsistent compared to the latter decisions. I chose D.

_________________
Please underline SC questions.

Please Do not post OA along with the Q.

Give and take Kudos.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:08 am 
Offline
Major Shareholder
Major Shareholder

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008
Posts: 896

Kudos (?): 16 (0), given: 93

IMO D.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:47 am 
Offline
Major Shareholder
Major Shareholder

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008
Posts: 700

Kudos (?): 4 (0), given: 1

IMO D...wht is the OA?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:34 pm 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys

Kudos (?): 5 (0), given: 5

od is d

_________________
Thanks
rampuria


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:04 am 
Offline
Manager
Manager

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008
Posts: 103

Kudos (?): 35 (0), given: 0

Where the HELL did this question come from? If it is a real GMAT or LSAT question, I'll have a cow.

All the answers except (D) are clearly wrong: There is no information in the paragraph that remotely supports any of them. The problem with (D) is close to what rampuria points out, but not quite. The paragraph actually DOES state a cause-and-effect relationship: Increasing the number of forms led to greater revenue. The problem is that choice (D) says that the desire for more revenue was the MOTIVATION for increasing the number of forms, which is a totally different statement.

The presence of cause and effect does not prove motivation. For instance, it is a fact that prohibition of drugs CAUSES organized crime to become very rich and powerful. We cannot conclude from this that every politician who supports prohibition is MOTIVATED by wanting to make organized crime very rich and powerful.

There is nothing in the paragraph that gives us any information, one way or the other, about the judges' MOTIVATION. Thus, we cannot logically prove that they did it FOR THE PURPOSE of improving their economic situation. Sure, it is highly likely in the real world -- but that is not enough to make it a proper GMAT or LSAT inference.


UPDATE: Not having a cow. rampuria advised me privately that this is an Arco question. My faith in GMAC remains strong.

_________________
Grumpy

Kaplan teacher and tutor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:45 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009
Posts: 40
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Concentration: Finance

Kudos (?): 0 (0), given: 2

My choice is D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CR-Judges [#permalink]
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:56 pm 
Offline
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009
Posts: 358
Affiliations: PMP

Kudos (?): 47 (0), given: 37

All I see in the question stimulus is fee and revenue and D talks about economic considerations and all others are totally un-related, so D is the answer based on elimination; if there was a "none of the above" that would've been the answer :)

_________________
Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip


Top
 Profile  
 
Online
gmatclubot
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Related Discussions

Forum

cr - judges Verbal GMAT Questions


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


Search for:
Jump to:




GMAT Club MBA Forum Home | Sitemap | About | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | GMAT Club Rules | Contact
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Kindly note that GMAT (C) is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC.