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

It is currently 22 Sep 2014, 20:28

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:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 532
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 19 May 2007, 16:24
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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. 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.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1097
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 19 May 2007, 17:01
A. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
Second doesn't attack first at all. Wrong
B. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
I don't see a very strong relation between first and second, but this can be a correct answer
C. The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
Second doesn't provide any ecidence for first at all. Wrong
D. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
Second can't be supporting first as an evidence if second starts with a "but". Wrong
E. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.
Second can't be supporting first as an exception if second starts with a "but". Wrong

I wish I could say none of the above. I'll go with B, I guess
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 19 May 2007, 21:52
B/W A and E...I would go for A.
In E,the second part doesnt seem to provide an explanation for the first statement.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 222
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 19 May 2007, 22:37
A...
The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack----
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their....

the second is that attack---
The nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries.......this is the attack on the fact that nominees are not conservative but are influenced by lobbyist.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 326
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 20 May 2007, 02:58
apache wrote:
A...
The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack----
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their....

the second is that attack---
The nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries.......this is the attack on the fact that nominees are not conservative but are influenced by lobbyist.


Agree with apache

Javed.

Cheers!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Followers: 0

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 20 May 2007, 10:16
Confused. what is the OA ?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 21 May 2007, 13:19
B.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 550
Schools: MIT Sloan
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 22 May 2007, 13:04
go with C

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

the phenomenon -
"The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues"

Conclusion - they are not really conservative
"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"

Support of the conclusion -
"The nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts"

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 532
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 22 May 2007, 13:24
grad_mba wrote:
go with C

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

the phenomenon -
"The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues"

Conclusion - they are not really conservative
"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"

Support of the conclusion -
"The nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts"


OA is C. Great job grad_mba!!
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 23 May 2007, 11:01
Not convinced with the OA...

I think the conclusion is

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues.

The part after But just contradicts this to support the second boldface.

Any thoughts??....
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 12

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 23 May 2007, 12:24
Im with C

vine

A is wrong because he does not aim to attack the first statement !

he agrees with that statement when he states


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.

so by admitting that they are more notable for something else, does not attack the first statement. He basically accepts its truth but is trying to state that ok that may be so, but the REAL problem is that they are involved in special interests.

so they are semi unrelated

in C he accepts the first statement as being true by the reasons above.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 27 May 2007, 18:02
Whats the conclusion of this argument??
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 447
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 28 May 2007, 09:18
vineetgupta wrote:
Whats the conclusion of this argument??


A confusing CR.
For me the conclusion is
"the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests"

The structure of the argument:
An opening statement (a phenomenon accepted as truth) ----> a conclusion that contradicts that phenomenon -----> support of the conclusion ----> some extra details :)
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 28 May 2007, 12:10
Caas wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
Whats the conclusion of this argument??


A confusing CR.
For me the conclusion is
"the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests"

The structure of the argument:
An opening statement (a phenomenon accepted as truth) ----> a conclusion that contradicts that phenomenon -----> support of the conclusion ----> some extra details :)


Thanks Caas for the help.
  [#permalink] 28 May 2007, 12:10
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been nitzz 7 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
11 Experts publish their posts in the topic The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been rohitgoel15 5 31 Jan 2012, 05:01
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been IEsailor 12 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
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

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®.