Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a [#permalink]
05 May 2003, 10:35
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?