Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum
Learn more about the recent changes... close

It is currently 18 May 2013, 00:25
Customize  |  Hide

Search
Register
New posts
Unanswered

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
  Oldest Best Reply
Search for:
 
Print view
First unread post
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 20 Oct 2012, 09:20
00:00

Question Stats:

31% (02:48) correct 68% (01:45) wrong based on 4 sessions
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
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 29
Followers: 0

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

Re: Please explain your answers. [#permalink] New post 20 Oct 2012, 13:42
nitzz wrote:
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.


A: BF1 can be a generalization, but it's certainly not being attacked by the author.
B: BF2 is not the author's conclusion. It's a supporting evidence.
C: Correct, although I don't think BF1 is necessarily a phenomenon that the author "accepts." It's the opinion of others that he merely restates.
D: BF1 is not the author's position. BF2 is not related to BF1.
E: Nothing in this passage suggests there's anything that can be interpreted as an exception to a rule, with perhaps the .. ahem, exception of the last sentence (the level of extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees *may* be a historical exception since it's deemed to be "unprecedented").
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

Re: Please explain your answers. [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2012, 03:27
Since BF1 is not a phenomenon, i eliminated it first up,picking up the wrong answer choice :(
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 4
WE: Business Development (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2012, 09:03
I couldn't find any other option better than C...Hence I chose C..
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 259
Location: India
Schools: LBS '14 (S), INSEAD Jan '14, Said (I), Judge (S)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 68

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2013, 21:27
Can anyone explain the process of elimination for this question?

thanks
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 29
Followers: 0

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

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2013, 23:17
greatps24 wrote:
Can anyone explain the process of elimination for this question?

thanks


A: The second is *not* an attack. It's an evidence supporting the first boldface.
B: The second BF is *not* a conclusion.
C: Let's say maybe correct.
D: The first may or may not be the author's position. The author doesn't claim that this is his or her observation. He merely states that the judges "have been judged" to be too conservative.
E: The first is not an exception to anything.

SO it's C.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

CAT Tests
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2013, 00:04
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
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 20 Feb 2013, 00:04
    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, 17:24
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been pmenon 1 03 Feb 2008, 21:33
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been MamtaKrishnia 9 30 Jul 2008, 11:33
Popular new posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been IEsailor 12 17 Oct 2009, 12:47
New posts 3 EXPERTS_POSTS_IN_THIS_TOPIC The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been rohitgoel15 4 31 Jan 2012, 06:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
Print view
First unread post

Moderators: metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn

Search for:


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®.

Main navigation

GMAT Resources

Partners

MBA Resources

www.gmac.com|www.mba.com