Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 07 Dec 2016, 06:46

# Chicago-Booth

is Releasing R1 Admission Decisions | Keep Watch on App Tracker | Join Chat Room2 for Live Updates

### 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

# Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 149
Followers: 1

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

Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2003, 10:35
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

1. Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a judge, as evidenced by Jones’s receiving a unanimous vote of “qualified” on the formal rating scale used by the Lawyer’s Committee. That committee advises the Senate on judicial appointments.

Which of the following if true, is the best reason for dismissing the senator’s claim that Jones is highly qualified?

a. Several members of the Lawyers’s Committee are not themselves qualified for judicial appointments.
b. The Lawyer’s Committee does not advise the Senate on all judicial appointments.
c. The lawyer’s Committee gives a unanimous vote of “qualified” only to those candidates for judicial appointments who meet the committee’s stringent standards for appropriate prior experience and ethical conduct.
d. The laywer’s committee gives a unanimous vote of either “highly qualified” or “very highly qualified” to 95 percent of all candidates for judicial appointments.
e. Jones, like most lawyers, is a member of the professional oraganisation that originally suggested the establishment of the lawyer’s committee.

Please provide a suitable explanation for your answer and rate the problem on scale of 1-5.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 100
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2003, 20:56
I am stuck between A and D......but finally I would go for A
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 235 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2003, 00:03
A) Several members of the Lawyers’s Committee are not qualified for judicial appointments (can be 2 out of 10000) -- a weak reason to dismiss the claim.

D) The committee gives a unanimous vote of either “highly qualified” or “very highly qualified” to 95 percent of all candidates. Therefore, Jones represents 5% left. A good reason to dismiss the claim that Jones is highly qualified to be a JUDGE? Probably not.

B) I vote for B. If the Committee does not advise the Senate on ALL appointments, the base for the claim is seriously damaged. For example, the Committee may advise for all appointments save for judges.

Correct?
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 149
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

06 May 2003, 09:27
Perfect confusion...

My reasoning went on the same lines as Stolyar. And found "B" as the right answer.

But the answer is actually "D".

So i would still stick with my reasoning that "B" makes more sense as "Lawyer's Commitee might not advise on all decisions"

although the official answer says "D".

Any thoughts..
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 16
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 00:31
Guys, sorry for outdated reply, but why not E.

For me D is definatelly out, may be all that 95% were really "very qual", and Jones was also qualified

B: "Lawyer's Commitee might not advise on all decisions", so what?

Sergei
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 235 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 00:49
IMHO: E is possible but not so strong as B. John is a member of the organization that SUGGESTED (not created and not supervised) the body. Also, who he is in the organization? A receptionist? A proctologist?

If he currently works as a proctologist in the organization that suggested to convene the body a century ago, it is highly unlikely that John might influence the decision.
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 16
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 00:53
Stolyar,

Ok I agree that E is not the best choice, but I still do not like B either :D
Intern
Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 May 2003, 01:21
I 'd go with d too,. D gives a strong reason to weaken the argument if 95% of them are rated as qualified, then the rating is of no use...
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 851
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 May 2003, 00:21
well...it is just senator's claim that Jones is higly qualified,,when infact he is just qualified. There is no criteria mentioned for being "highly Qualified"

But as the Lawyers committee gives a higher rating of "(very)highly qualified" to 95% of the members, Jones does not stand a chance..as he is just "qualified". Therefore, the answer D sounds logical to me
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 404
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 10:00
I am stuck between A and D
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 404
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 10:04
Can someone please give OA for this one...
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1267
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 13:50
d. The laywerâ€™s committee gives a unanimous vote of either â€œhighly qualifiedâ€
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 404
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 14:46
(D) appears the best on careful analysis. It gives a sufficiently strong reason to reject Senator's claim ..
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 945
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 14:54
will agree with D
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 110
Location: Louvain, Belgium
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2006, 10:40
guys , I think D is fine

if the commitee gave "highly qualifued" and "very highly qualified" to 95 % people and Jones has got "qualified", then he is in the worst 5% lot
this dismissed the claim of the senator
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2006, 02:53
Will go with D.

The senator argues that the judge is highly qualified on the basis of the "qualified" rating from the commitee, but the committee gives 95% of candidates either highly qualified or very highly qualified.
Then how can a candidate with qualified be better than the other 95% or be highly qualified
Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 792
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2006, 05:51
D stands.

A) Weak reason.
B) Contradicts the question stem.
C) Does not weaken the claim.
D) As jaynayak has explained.
E) Weak reason, and doesn't matter too much to the argument.
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

[#permalink] 27 Jun 2006, 05:51
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 In an effort to retain more highly-qualified teachers in the public 2 12 Sep 2016, 09:35
5 Senator and his claims 2 25 Aug 2013, 21:16
CR Senator Frank 3 01 Sep 2008, 13:42
8 Leachate is a solution, frequently highly contaminated, that 21 03 Feb 2008, 20:15
12 Leachate is a solutions, frequently highly contaminated, 15 06 Aug 2007, 13:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.