GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 May 2019, 14:06

### 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

# Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Posts: 112
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2009, 00:27
1
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

54% (00:54) correct 46% (01:26) wrong based on 65 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
5. 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.

--== Message from the GMAT Club Team ==--

THERE IS LIKELY A BETTER DISCUSSION OF THIS EXACT QUESTION.
This discussion does not meet community quality standards. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Manager
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 85

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2009, 01:42
2
shrutisingh 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.
5. 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.

Phew!! a lot of information.

As this is an EXCEPT question, my strategy is to find something in the ans choices that is out of scope and no where mentioned in the stimulus.

If you notice closely, option B talks about 'constitutional principles', but the stimulus talks about 'constitutional rights'.

So, even if the author assumes something on 'constitutional priciples', it will have no effect.

So IMO B is the right answer.

Apologies for not giving a more technical explanation.

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 727
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2009, 02:25
1
My guess is B

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected. -Evident from line "which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts."
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles. -Author has not mentioned anything related to this
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant. -Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one". If this had affected even the minor cases, that means it must had affected lot of cases.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses. -Evident from last line "defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again."
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights. -Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one....". This means author is assuming that the new rule is fine with serious offenses, but implementing it for minor offenses is just too much to accept.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 109

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2009, 03:05
IMO C... oa PLZ
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Posts: 112

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2009, 03:42
OA is B.
Manager
Joined: 24 May 2016
Posts: 141
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2016, 03:58
bigoyal wrote:
My guess is B

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected. -Evident from line "which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts."
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles. -Author has not mentioned anything related to this
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant. -Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one". If this had affected even the minor cases, that means it must had affected lot of cases.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses. -Evident from last line "defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again."
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights. -Evident from line "Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one....". This means author is assuming that the new rule is fine with serious offenses, but implementing it for minor offenses is just too much to accept.

bigoyal

In your discussion of option C, how can you logically go from "If this had affected even the minor cases..." to "...that means it must had affected lot of cases."?

This may or may not be the case.

Even if I chose option B, I was not able to find an irrefutable reason why option C is an assumption of the passage. It requires me to make a certain assumption on the author's intentions before I can say that it is an assumption of the passage.

Can anyone please give a solid reason why option C is an assumption of the passage?
Intern
Joined: 24 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2017, 04:01
could anyone explain this passage ?
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 2
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2017, 13:35
how C is an assumption ?
Nowhere in the argument the author mentions anything about the number of crimes.
Confused...

--== Message from the GMAT Club Team ==--

THERE IS LIKELY A BETTER DISCUSSION OF THIS EXACT QUESTION.
This discussion does not meet community quality standards. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4365
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2019, 00:52
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule,   [#permalink] 05 Apr 2019, 00:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by