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 24 Jan 2017, 07:21

### 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

Manager
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2008, 10:33
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (03:39) correct 67% (02:13) wrong based on 3 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. 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?

1. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
2. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
3.The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
4. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
5. 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!
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2008, 13:51
MamtaKrishnia 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?

1. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
2. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
3.The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
4. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
5. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.

B1. The first boldface is a pattern or a phenomenon (an extraordinary event) (A,D OUT). I do not believe that it is the authors conclusion since he/she is citing someone else's conclusion.
B2. Is an evidence hence (A,B,D, are out)
We are now left with C and E

IMO E since the last sentence says " ndependent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented"

Unprecedented could mean phenomenon or exception to the rule. However, the passage does not seems to imply whether the author thinks it is true or not.
Hence E
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2008, 15:51
I chose C.

I didn't think boldface 1 was an exception to the rule..
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 203
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2008, 18:56
Its between C and E. IMO E
the two statements are in opposition hence i ruled out c. According to C the two statements help each other
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2008, 06:41
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 314
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 33

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2011, 18:56

OA is C- i absolutely didnt get this one. if some one can break it down---

The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 920
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 341 [0], given: 123

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2011, 21:13
Second is evidence that supports the conclusion.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 920
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 341 [0], given: 123

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2011, 21:16
E "rule" is the spoiler. There is no legislation / enforcement redressed in the argument.
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 218
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2011, 23:26
Tough one. I chose E. Still can't get my head around this question.
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2011, 16:28
IMHO A
Re: CR-president’s nominees   [#permalink] 03 Mar 2011, 16:28
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 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 13 19 May 2007, 16:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by