Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 13:07 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 13:07

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92883
Own Kudos [?]: 618580 [63]
Given Kudos: 81563
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64880 [17]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2017
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Send PM
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
A,D,E are out. Between B/C, I believe B is better answer
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2016
Status:On the journey of achieving
Affiliations: Senior Manager, CA by profession, CFA(USA) Level 2
Posts: 254
Own Kudos [?]: 167 [0]
Given Kudos: 148
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q44 V23
GMAT 2: 530 Q39 V24
GMAT 3: 580 Q46 V24 (Online)
GMAT 4: 640 Q50 V26
GPA: 3.82
WE:Other (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
I marked Option C as number of cases where final outcome is affected by exclusionary rule is significant cant be the assumption.
VeritasKarishma Mam can you please explain this question... I am unable to deduce how Option B can't be the assumption
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 342
Own Kudos [?]: 200 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
sujaysinha7 wrote:
I think its B as its not assumed unlike other options.

I echo the same. And I have chosen the answer only to see it as incorrect. Moreover, This one is something very difficult to eliminite based on the premise given.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 342
Own Kudos [?]: 200 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
krishnabalu wrote:
A,D,E are out. Between B/C, I believe B is better answer

Glad that you thinking matches the one like experts. Please do add your explanations, if you can. This will help ppl like me to judge how other test takers see and think.
Thanks.
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2016
Status:On the journey of achieving
Affiliations: Senior Manager, CA by profession, CFA(USA) Level 2
Posts: 254
Own Kudos [?]: 167 [0]
Given Kudos: 148
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q44 V23
GMAT 2: 530 Q39 V24
GMAT 3: 580 Q46 V24 (Online)
GMAT 4: 640 Q50 V26
GPA: 3.82
WE:Other (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
Thanks a tonne for the explanation VeritasKarishma mam -:)
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2021
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 141
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:


(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.


The question is not of very high quality.
Nevertheless, the words used by the author indicate that he is assuming 4 of the given 5 options but is not assuming (B).

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
"Although its purpose is laudable... " - he says that the purpose of the rule (not violate defendant’s constitutional rights) is laudable. So he believes that defendant's constitutional rights should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
"Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, ..." - just means even in those cases where the violation was technical. It doesn't mean that this is true of MOST cases. Hence the author does not assume this anywhere in the passage.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
"...rule...has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts" - the author believes that the rule has hampered efforts. If the number of cases were insignificant, we could not have said that the efforts are hampered by it.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
"... defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again." - notice the use of "again". We can assume that some of these defendants were certainly charged with "stealing", "rape" or "murder", which we can consider serious offenses.

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
"Even when the rights violation was purely technical one, ... rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty,..., the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule" - the author believes that merely technical violations should be treated differently from deliberate assaults.

Answer (B)


Could you please explain why option (A) is not the answer instead? I agree that the author is in favor of protecting constitutional rights of defendants. However, "criminal defendants" is a bit of a stretch?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2021
Posts: 216
Own Kudos [?]: 145 [0]
Given Kudos: 75
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
"Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one" seems quite opposite to B.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Oct 2022
Posts: 74
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
KarishmaB wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:


(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.


The question is not of very high quality.
Nevertheless, the words used by the author indicate that he is assuming 4 of the given 5 options but is not assuming (B).

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
"Although its purpose is laudable... " - he says that the purpose of the rule (not violate defendant’s constitutional rights) is laudable. So he believes that defendant's constitutional rights should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
"Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, ..." - just means even in those cases where the violation was technical. It doesn't mean that this is true of MOST cases. Hence the author does not assume this anywhere in the passage.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
"...rule...has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts" - the author believes that the rule has hampered efforts. If the number of cases were insignificant, we could not have said that the efforts are hampered by it.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
"... defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again." - notice the use of "again". We can assume that some of these defendants were certainly charged with "stealing", "rape" or "murder", which we can consider serious offenses.

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.
"Even when the rights violation was purely technical one, ... rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty,..., the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule" - the author believes that merely technical violations should be treated differently from deliberate assaults.

Answer (B)



classic example where we cannot eliminate options based on language/criticality of options

I eliminated B, since MOST is mentioned in the option, only to realize language based elimination is not applicable in such [EXCEPT] Questions

Also, I need to understand how "hampered law-enforcement efforts" is guiding us towards Quantity of cases (significant number)

My presumption while reading the question was that the excerpt belongs to a single critical case

KarishmaB ma'am can you clarify the above
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Nov 2022
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
Answer B - EXTREME words like MOST- author does not assume that most cases the rule invoked were of minor or technical nature - in fact they are not concerned with most cases, their argument just requires those technical rules invoked to be significant enough for serious crime.

Also the author needs a better understanding of law - placing false evidence to speed through the process and making it look like a technical flaw is quite common around the world - 1000 guilty going unpunished is better than 1 innocent being convicted - sorry could not resist not a part of the answer explanation.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2023
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 63
Send PM
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
I think option E is what the author is arguing for, not his assumption?

If option B is not assumed, then the impact is not significant? Similar to option C

Could someone please explain. Thank you

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne