The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged

Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you

here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

The BF1 states "The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues"
It is followed by author's statement : 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

I concluded with option A because this is the closest choice where author opposes the stated passage. In BF2, he continues to indicate that these judges are appointed in the courts which are very critical.
Also in the BF2 : Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries

Yes, I too have the same question in mind....who do manhattan and others who have replied in the forum say that the first bold statement was accepted by the author as true when the argument is trying is oppose the position that the nominees are conservative.

Going by the explanations given, so does 'being conservative on hot-button issues' mean that these nominees are lobbyists for industries and do not raise their voice for the issues that will affect these industries and conservatively support these industries rather than fighting for the issues created by these industries ?? In that case, what is the use of the word 'but' as hurdle7 rightly points out ??

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.

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.

To attack this type of questions is always better to look first for the conclusion, if any, and then try to identify, after reading the whole argument, the BF parts.

Conclusion: Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

The phrase mentioned before, is the conclusion of the argument. The author acknowledge the first sentence as true, but thinks that there is something more going on.

Now, in order to back its conclusion, the author should mention some premises or evidence of the claim he tries to make.

Premises: 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 both premises above, the author is trying to support his view that there is something more going on by showing that nominees are somehow backing the industries and litigation over those are battlegrounds because of the biases that the nominees have over those specific industries. Moreover, the author states that independent observers believe that the corporate involvement is unprecedented as a way to supports its claim.

BF1. Background.
BF2. Support of author conclusion = Premise.

Now let's check answer choices and try to match them with BF1 and BF2. Work from wrong to right:

A. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
I do understand that the first part of the answer may seem right, but the reality is that the author does not aim to attack. It just providing some context and then claiming that there is something more going on. The second part, is not an attack but a support of the author's claim.

B. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The first seems like our classification of BF1. Part 2 of the answer is wrong, the BF2 is a PREMISE not a CONCLUSION.

(C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
Both part of the answer are align with our classification of the bold faces.

(D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
The first is not the author position, is an acknowledge of the situation, but you can say that this statement is close enough, so let's see the second part. The second part is wrong. It is not a support of that position, but a support of the conclusion.

(E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception
First part: Wrong. It is not an exception rule, is actually what is going on. Second Part: Wrong. As mentioned before is a premise of the author's conclusion.

Hello!
How can the first be a phenomenon. I discarded the choice only beacuse of the word phenomenon.
Please clarify.

Thank you in advance

Posted from my mobile device

Hey 41396302717, would love to know why you thought it couldn't be a phenomenon. Is it due to the fact when we use the word phenomenon, you expect to hear something scientific? Probably global warming? It can happen as that is generally the context in which phenomenon is used, but the english language is super flexible and the word can be used for other things as well!

Definition of phenomenon as per google - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. OR a remarkable person, thing, or event.

Hey Experts,

I've gone through all the posts but still, I'm finding it difficult to understand the argument's conclusion.

Per Manhattan Answer, the author's main conclusion is 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.

IMO this is evidence. Even though it's not factual but somewhat stems from a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires. Only if the author would have directly stated these judges are close to corporates, it would have been his opinion. Right now it looks like a logical finding of a review?

Please clarify this?

I couldn't find any conclusion mentioned in the question. There is no conclusion mentioned by the author. All statements are facts or premises.
Can someone please shed some light on this?

Thanks

Hey folks.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the conclusion is 'are more notable...'. Additionally, I'm unable to get my head around the exact structure of the paragraph. Can you help me understand how do we come to the correct conclusion in this paragraph? There aren't any helping words (Therefore, Thus, Hence..etc), neither the test 'Did A happen because of B, or did B happen because of A' helping here.

My understanding of the paragraph is below.

1. The first boldface is an observation - individuals nominated by the President for positions in the federal circuit courts are generally considered to be conservative
2. Then, the author mentions about a surprising observation - a closer examination of the nominees' financial disclosure forms and responses to Senate questionnaires shows that their significant connections are with corporate and economic interests
3. The author further adds that some of them were paid lobbyists for the interest of mining & other industries.
4. Further, the author adds another observation - among the individuals nominated by the current President, those with ties to industries, particularly in energy and mining, were predominantly chosen for circuit courts
5. The author ends with assertion, that according to some independent observers, 2 , 3 & 4 are never seen before (unprecedented).

So if I break down the argument, (1) is a generally true fact which the author does not dispute, (2), (3) & (4) highlight why whats happening currently is extremely surprising & (5) is an ending remark emphasizing the surprise element.

For me (1) is a fact/observation that the author does not dispute, and (4) adds information which explains the current scenario in contrast. I dont see a conclusion made anywhere.