CR-Judges

		00:00
	How to...

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.



Pls explain

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.

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

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

[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.

Is it D??

My choice is D

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.

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?

[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.

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

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.

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.

IMO D.

IMO D...wht is the OA?

od is d

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.

My choice is D

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