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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 04:52

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

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2008, 10:33
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (03:39) correct 67% (02:13) wrong based on 2 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?

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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 328
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 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
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 5

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2008, 15:51
I chose C.

I didn't think boldface 1 was an exception to the rule..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 207
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 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
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 5

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 04 Aug 2008, 06:41
OA please?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 316
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 33

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2011, 18:56
bigfernhead wrote:
OA please?

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
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 929
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2011, 21:13
Second is evidence that supports the conclusion.
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 929
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2011, 21:16
E "rule" is the spoiler. There is no legislation / enforcement redressed in the argument.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 220
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2011, 23:26
Tough one. I chose E. Still can't get my head around this question.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR-president’s nominees [#permalink] New post 03 Mar 2011, 16:28
IMHO A
Re: CR-president’s nominees   [#permalink] 03 Mar 2011, 16:28
    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
13 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 pmenon 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been Juaz 13 19 May 2007, 16:24
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®.