Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 23:41

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 162
Followers: 1

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

Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 05:11
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will.

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle.

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.

Last edited by iamcartic on 20 Jun 2008, 05:36, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 05:15
Bolded ?
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 162
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 05:37
Sorry - missed that!!!
Current Student
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 06:09
Is it B?
Manager
Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 65
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 06:29
iamcartic wrote:
Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will. This states the conclusion.

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.
This contradicts the premises on which conclusion is based.
Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle.

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.

I think it should be D.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 06:52
I think it is D.
Because the underlying assumption is :
a will governs the distribution of one’s property .
But the second bold sentence contradicts this premise .

iamcartic wrote:
Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will.

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle.

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 07:41
: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will.
Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle. - -- the second statement DOESNT restate the first one...so out...

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position---- the second one is not an EVIDENCE.... so out...

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.---- the first one is not a FACTUAL EVIDENCE.... so out...

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.-- correct... the first one is a conclusion... and second one is contradicting the assumption on which the first rests...

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.---- the second one is not an example of beliefs..
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 337
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 11:24
Straight D.
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Houston TX
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 13:19
The answers are narrowed down to B and D. I have a problem with D, 'cause the first bolded part is not the conclusion of the argument, it's actually the subordinate conclusion. So I think D out, B is the correct answer.
_________________

haveaniceday

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 13:34
IMO D
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 629
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 13:38
D
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 283 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 15:16
btw D and B..will go with D..
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 15:56
D for me as well
Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 789
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 18:16
clearly D

not B because the second boldface is not providing any evidence.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 23:12
iamcartic wrote:
Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will.

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle.

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.

Easy to narrow down the multiple choices from 5 to 2 (B,D).

D says: 1st: Conclusion! OK (may be conclusion); 2nd: Contradict premise! NO! Contradict ASSUMPTION.

B:1st Position! OK. 2nd: Evidence supporting alternate position: Really "the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will" is evidence to support other position.

I choose B.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2008, 21:21
What is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 162
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2008, 21:33
You are right Lexis - OA is B!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 315
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 137 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2008, 08:59
iamcartic wrote:
Q: Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a will to govern the distribution of one’s property upon death, most people would be better off not drafting a will. Intestacy laws govern the disposition of the estates, the financial assets and personal belongings, of people who die without wills. These laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any. Because most people would choose a similar division of property if they drafted wills, they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will.

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. The document also determines the guardianship of minor children if both parents are dead. Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the bolded phrases in the discussion above?

A: The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle.

B: The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting an alternate position

C: The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence.

D: The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based.

E: The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs.

I'll have to go For D.

Antonio's speech has two conclusions ( a sub and main), sub conclusion states that "most people would be better off not drafting a will ". The main conclusion states that Because ....., they should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will. The conclusion is based on the fact that Intestacy laws generally divide the deceased’s assets among the surviving spouse and children, if any

Beatrice's argument in bold "the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will. " contradicts the premise on which Antonio's conclusion is based by stating that attorneys do more than dividing the assets of the deceased. SHe goes on to cite an example "The document also determines .........."
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1367
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 613 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2008, 19:26
D
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 513
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2008, 22:36
I also go with B..

As the conculsion of the argument according to me would be "Thus, a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws:"

Hence D does not hold
Re: CR: Lets discuss!   [#permalink] 23 Jun 2008, 22:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Although many people would not believe it, the mosquito 5 01 Jun 2015, 03:26
Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of 7 13 Jan 2011, 08:10
4 Although many claim, rightfully so, that selfish interests 13 03 Oct 2010, 13:42
1 Q24)Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of 11 23 Apr 2010, 21:47
5 Although many 17th century broadsides, popular ballads 10 05 Nov 2009, 03:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by