The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been : 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, 15:07
GMAT Club Tests

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

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

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 513 [3] , given: 20

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 05:01
3
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:45) correct 53% (01:58) wrong based on 356 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Although discussed at the-president-s-nominees-to-federal-circuit-courts-have-been-85434.html but I am not satisfied. Can someone explain the OA?

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface pay which of the following roles?

A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Request Expert Reply
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 289
Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 271 [0], given: 51

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 07:24
I really dont understand how option C is the solution.Even if the author accepts the first bold part as true,how can the candidates in nexus with the lobbyists prove to be conservative ??
_________________

+1 if you like my explanation .Thanks :)

Expert Post
5 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 307
Followers: 511

Kudos [?]: 953 [5] , given: 2

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 14:27
5
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I'd be glad to help :-D

The author doesn’t actually disagree with the first bold-faced statement. If you read the second sentence it says “a more notable finding.”

Thus the author agrees with the first statement (“…acknowledge as true...”), but believes that there is an even more interesting/titillating phenomenon: that the recently appointed judges have strong ties to certain industries, i.e. energy and mining.

He backs up this assertion in the second bold-faced sentence: those judges with industry ties were far more likely to be appointed to courts in which their respective industries had special interests (smell like corruption to me!).

This last part back ups the argument’s conclusion that a notable finding amongst the current crop of judges is their industry ties. And thus, corresponds to “…evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

This is the exact wording from (C), which I've reproduced below:

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

Hope that helped!
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep


Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 513 [0], given: 20

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 17:53
ChrisLele wrote:
I'd be glad to help :-D

The author doesn’t actually disagree with the first bold-faced statement. If you read the second sentence it says “a more notable finding.”

Thus the author agrees with the first statement (“…acknowledge as true...”), but believes that there is an even more interesting/titillating phenomenon: that the recently appointed judges have strong ties to certain industries, i.e. energy and mining.

He backs up this assertion in the second bold-faced sentence: those judges with industry ties were far more likely to be appointed to courts in which their respective industries had special interests (smell like corruption to me!).

This last part back ups the argument’s conclusion that a notable finding amongst the current crop of judges is their industry ties. And thus, corresponds to “…evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

This is the exact wording from (C), which I've reproduced below:

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

Hope that helped!


Thanks Chris. Kudos. Yes, ur reply surely helped. I didnt like Option C because of the word phenomenon :cry:
If you can guide on the difficulty level of this question, this will surely help.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 369
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 31

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2012, 01:14
IMO C nice explanation above
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10439
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [1] , given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2014, 16:25
1
This post received
KUDOS
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10439
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2015, 08:49
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 56
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 5

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Feb 2016, 07:16
need some clarity on this. first sentence says nominees are conservative and second sentence starts with a "but". Sounds like a contrast.
for example " it was told that Jim was the topper in his class.But his grades were rather low". So we have all the reason to believe that Jim is not actually the topper.

Last edited by pkm9995109794 on 29 Feb 2016, 06:16, edited 1 time in total.
Expert Post
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 924
Followers: 287

Kudos [?]: 780 [0], given: 25

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Feb 2016, 01:07
pkm9995109794, check out ChrisLele's explanation above. The first statement isn't actually cited as support for the argument. The author is basically saying "Hey, it's true that these nominees are conservative. But I want to point out something else: they are more notable for their corporate ties. Here's some evidence of that." So the conclusion (bolded above) is followed by premises. The first statement is something that the author thinks is true, but that they don't find as interesting.

Here's another example:

True, Candidate X is inexperienced. But what's more important is that his policies are dangerous. If enacted, they would lead to unprecedented levels of poverty and environmental degradation.

The author agrees with the first sentence, but doesn't think it's as important the impact of Candidate X's policy. The second and third sentences produce the actual conclusion and premise.
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 29 Feb 2016, 01:07
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been nitzz 9 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
6 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been IEsailor 16 17 Oct 2009, 11:47
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been MamtaKrishnia 9 30 Jul 2008, 10:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been pmenon 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been Juaz 13 19 May 2007, 16:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.