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

It is currently 18 Apr 2014, 12:59

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

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 20

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2012, 05:01
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (medium)

Question Stats:

38% (02:27) correct 61% (01:51) wrong based on 71 sessions
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
Kaplan Promo CodeKnewton GMAT Discount CodesVeritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 289
Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 50

GMAT Tests User
Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink] 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 :)

3 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 305
Followers: 269

Kudos [?]: 375 [3] , given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2012, 14:27
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 20

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink] 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
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 370
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 31

Re: The president’s nominees [#permalink] 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.

Re: The president’s nominees   [#permalink] 15 Mar 2012, 01:14
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Popular new posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been Juaz 13 19 May 2007, 16:24
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been pmenon 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been MamtaKrishnia 9 30 Jul 2008, 10:33
Popular new posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been IEsailor 12 17 Oct 2009, 11:47
New posts 1 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been nitzz 7 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.