The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 04:00

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 528
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

19 May 2007, 16:24
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
If you have any questions
New!
Current Student
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1097
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 217
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 176
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 May 2007, 10:16
Confused. what is the OA ?
Manager
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 May 2007, 13:19
B.
Director
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 545
Schools: MIT Sloan
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 528
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

22 May 2007, 13:24
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
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 May 2007, 18:02
Whats the conclusion of this argument??
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 440
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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.
28 May 2007, 12:10
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 9 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
21 The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 8 31 Jan 2012, 05:01
6 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 16 17 Oct 2009, 11:47
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 9 30 Jul 2008, 10:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by