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

It is currently 15 Sep 2014, 01:49

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

Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 04:16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.

Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate’s argument?

(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.

(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.

(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.

(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.

(E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 910
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 12:32
(A) because it is the only one that seems to address the issue the defendant has regarding the mandatory jail sentences and how jury feel when they consider the harshness in mandatory sentencing.
The question stem as for basis for countering the public advocate’s argument thus (A)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 255
Location: Rockville
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 12:49
i would go with A nothing else seems to correspond with the given premise and counter argument
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 45
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR030215--justice [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 17:44
chunjuwu wrote:
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.

Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate’s argument?

(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.

(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.

(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.

(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.

(E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.



D&E are out :not relevant statetements
A : out: does not support politician
it has to be between B and C.
Since advocate doesn't imply anyehere that current system requires jurors to have legal expertise, i would rule out C.

B is my pick.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5097
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 18:37
(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.
- B shold give the politician a strong case. If there are specific rules laid out for the judges in the new system of justice, then the public advocate's concern is unfounded.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 19:22
still no correct answer appears

keep up. :lol:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 22:22
How about C? A system of justice doesn't require any legal expertise, so no doubt in judge's mind to be lenient or harsh
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 854
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Mar 2005, 22:49
I chose B..but as the OA is different, I reconsidered the argument.

Public advocate: Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.

So, to counter this, E states that "Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification"

As there could be another way to reverse the consequences by modifying the law, rather than revoking it....I would go with E
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2255
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR030215--justice [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2005, 09:12
Politician: Mandatory jail sentence enhance integrity of the justice system because judges do not have discretionary powers.
Public advocate: The juries now acquit a defendant if they feel the mandatory sentence would be too harsh, thus do not return an accurate verdict. Therefore the madatory sentence law needs to be repeals.

Ask for support for Politician (PO) to counter PA.

(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.
Supports PA.

(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.
Supports PO. But does not counter PA.

(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.
Does not counter PA.

(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.
Support PA.

(E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.
This one will provide the strongest basis for the POs to counter PAs.

(E)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 28
Location: SE Michigan
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2005, 14:28
I picked (E) as that fits in like a glove to the situation. The politician is arguing for the reforms. Public Advocate points out an undesirable effect of that reform and wants to repeal. (E) would make the strongest out of the 5.. If it's possible to remove the undesirable effect thru further reforms, public advocate has been outwitted.

(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.

- That doesn't add any weight to Politician's arguement. Now if it were to say "juries should only base their decisions on the evidence of the case and not on the effects of this law" then I'd consider this.

(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.

- irrrelevant

(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.

- just a useless matter of fact

(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.

- tempting, as it appears to go close to E. But is vague as it says "changes should be made", which could support either of the arguers.

E is very specific in that it says it should not be repealed unless there's no other way.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR030215--justice [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2005, 18:54
HongHu wrote:
Politician: Mandatory jail sentence enhance integrity of the justice system because judges do not have discretionary powers.
Public advocate: The juries now acquit a defendant if they feel the mandatory sentence would be too harsh, thus do not return an accurate verdict. Therefore the madatory sentence law needs to be repeals.

Ask for support for Politician (PO) to counter PA.

(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.
Supports PA.

(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.
Supports PO. But does not counter PA.

(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.
Does not counter PA.

(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.
Support PA.

(E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.
This one will provide the strongest basis for the POs to counter PAs.

(E)


Hello, HongHu, why choice A supports?

As PA said, the deed of pardon is improper. But choice A said juries should acquit the defendant.
It seems to counter PA's argument
I cannot figure out why A supports?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 240
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2005, 19:11
nice question - I had chosen A - but was wrong.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5097
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2005, 19:12
I'll take E. Advocate is calling for the legislature to be repealed. The politician's response would be to not abolish the mandatory jail sentence unless it is not possible to ameliorate (tolerate) those undesirble consequences (juries being lenient) through further modifications.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2255
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR030215--justice [#permalink] New post 18 Mar 2005, 08:05
chunjuwu wrote:
Hello, HongHu, why choice A supports?

As PA said, the deed of pardon is improper. But choice A said juries should acquit the defendant.
It seems to counter PA's argument
I cannot figure out why A supports?


"A supports PA" may have been too strong of a claim. But at least it doesn't weaken PA's argument. A says the jury should aquit a defendant if they found reasonable doubts. PA's argument is that the jury sometimes aquit a defendant for other reasons (ie sentence would be too harsh) and not because they found reasonable doubts (note the word "solely"), and that this is wrong.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR030215--justice [#permalink] New post 18 Mar 2005, 09:48
HongHu, thanks
OA is E.

I got it :lol:
Re: CR030215--justice   [#permalink] 18 Mar 2005, 09:48
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In each sentence below, combine the two individual sentences adineo 3 09 Sep 2012, 21:45
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strongly voodoochild 8 12 Aug 2012, 17:10
3 The law that raised the mandatory retirement age from 65 to GHIBI 4 14 Jan 2008, 22:48
In many states that have passed mandatory sentencing freetheking 7 20 Jul 2006, 09:59
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two ronybtl 9 13 Nov 2005, 16:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

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®.