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

It is currently 24 Apr 2014, 19:25

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:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 274
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 4

GMAT Tests User
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 17 Oct 2009, 11:47
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

44% (02:54) correct 55% (01:37) wrong based on 29 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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 155
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

GMAT Tests User
Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 17 Oct 2009, 14:30
IEsailor 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



"C" for me.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

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

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 17 Oct 2009, 15:55
I will choose B, someone break it down please.
VP
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1368
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 17 Oct 2009, 22:02
Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 155
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

GMAT Tests User
Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 18 Oct 2009, 00:14
amit2k9 wrote:
Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.
This is not the conclusion.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 115
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 3

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 18 Oct 2009, 05:13
Geez, I hate boldfaces...

Boldface 1: Issue stated
"But a review..." <-- the author refutes the issue

Boldface 2: second issue
"Independent observers..." <-- the author explains why the issue 1 may have occurred

Therefore, E for me.

OA?


IEsailor 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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 274
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 4

GMAT Tests User
Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 18 Oct 2009, 07:51
OA is C
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 03 Nov 2009, 08:50
I am confused, where is the conclusion?

OA- C. Says evidence to author's conclusion. What is author's conclusion?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 92
Followers: 0

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

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2011, 08:24
Can someone please explain this.....
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 6

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2012, 18:44
here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

Quote:
"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."
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 270
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 22

GMAT Tests User
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2012, 22:02
We cannot say this "observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented." is the conclusion but from the argument we can judge that author is towards this side..

Now we need to identify how first bold face affecting this author support
Same for the Second bold face.

Now first is observation(fact) that refute authors view
Second is supporting evidence

C
_________________

The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.

Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 210
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 8

GMAT Tests User
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2012, 23:05
I think the answer is C . Here the first part is basically a observation which the author believes to be true and second part is the reasoning which provides support.
_________________

_________________
Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 370
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 31

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink] New post 15 Mar 2012, 00:56
C good explanations above
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 15 Mar 2012, 00:56
    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, 16:24
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been pmenon 1 03 Feb 2008, 20:33
New posts The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been MamtaKrishnia 9 30 Jul 2008, 10:33
New posts 3 Experts publish their posts in the topic The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been rohitgoel15 4 31 Jan 2012, 05:01
New posts 1 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been nitzz 7 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.