CR-Judges : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Feb 2017, 05:03

### 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

# CR-Judges

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 20:46
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

74% (02:14) correct 26% (01:14) wrong based on 535 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In the earliest stages of the common law, a party could have a case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court, and then only if the case fit within one of the forms for which there existed a writ. At first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small, but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues.

Which of the following conclusions is most strongly suggested by the paragraph above?

(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive.
(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations.
(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law.

Pls explain
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Thanks
rampuria

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 203
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 22:39
E. OA?

the question stem says,
case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court and then if exists in writ.
Action:
1) first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small.
2)but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues.

To conclude this,
one should properly conclude why cases of action is small and how it got increaced.

E explains clearly.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 282
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 23:41
I agree with the explanation above and think the answer is E.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 00:07
I got D , but every one other seems to get E.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 00:21
[P1] party could have a case only upon the payment
[P2] if the case fit a writ.
[P3] formalized cases of action was very small
[P4] judges invented new forms
[P5] brought more cases and greater revenues

The above are set of premises and the conclusion should
sum up all the premises.

(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
arbitrary and haphazard manner ? Does some premise state that. May be
they were organized thats the reason they took the case which had
written writ.

(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or
the executive.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was
economic considerations.
Yes , It kind of concludes why "party could have a case only upon the payment",
why "judges invented new forms" , to get in more money.
It seems to be the soul movitation for the expansion in judiciary system.

(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did
not form a coherent body of law.
Inconsistent and Incoherent ?? Which premise states that ? Even if true, doesn't
really conclude anything.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 302
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 01:15
Is it D??
_________________

"CEO in making"

VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 423 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 01:23
My choice is D
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 01:43
gmatavenue wrote:
[P1] party could have a case only upon the payment
[P2] if the case fit a writ.
[P3] formalized cases of action was very small
[P4] judges invented new forms
[P5] brought more cases and greater revenues

The above are set of premises and the conclusion should
sum up all the premises.

(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
arbitrary and haphazard manner ? Does some premise state that. May be
they were organized thats the reason they took the case which had
written writ.

(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or
the executive.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was
economic considerations.
Yes , It kind of concludes why "party could have a case only upon the payment",
why "judges invented new forms" , to get in more money.
It seems to be the soul movitation for the expansion in judiciary system.

(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did
not form a coherent body of law.
Inconsistent and Incoherent ?? Which premise states that ? Even if true, doesn't
really conclude anything.

Does'nt D have a cause and effect problem. The expansion lead to increased revenues, not the other war around. It is possible that the judges took the initiative to expand the scope of the judiciary for the betterment of citizens, not for economic consideration.

RITULA HELP ME ON THIS.
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 02:13
Could you pl elaborate the cause --> effect problem you see in D. Thanks.
Specially in a conclusion question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 04:22
gmatavenue wrote:
Could you pl elaborate the cause --> effect problem you see in D. Thanks.
Specially in a conclusion question.

What I am trying to ask is how we can conclude that the economic consideration motivated the judges to expand the scope of cases. It could be that the expansion drives of the judges lead to generation of money. The judges could have been paying least attention to the revenues.

Are you getting what I am trying to say?
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 05:08
[P1] party could have a case only upon the payment
[P2] if the case fit a writ.
[P3] formalized cases of action was very small
[P4] judges invented new forms
[P5] brought more cases and greater revenues

A careful reading will surely get you [P1] , where it is clear that money was the motive.

So I really cannot decipher your query.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 05:29
I agree with D

I don't see any cause and effect problem. It states that economic considerations was 'one of the motivating factors'

Cheers,
Unplugged
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 423 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 05:55
Rampuria, even if we ignore for a while the casue and effect case, we can easily eliminate other choices as all others are out of scope.
for ex no where is it mentioned or implied that early judges decided cases in arbitrary or haphazard manner.hence A is out.
Similarly other choices are also outr of scope. Now coming to D, since it is mentioned in the argument that cases could be persued only after payment of fees. Jugdes invented new forms which brought new cases and hence more revenues. So it is quite possible that the motive of judges behind bringing more cases was money.

rampuria wrote:
gmatavenue wrote:
[P1] party could have a case only upon the payment
[P2] if the case fit a writ.
[P3] formalized cases of action was very small
[P4] judges invented new forms
[P5] brought more cases and greater revenues

The above are set of premises and the conclusion should
sum up all the premises.

(A) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
arbitrary and haphazard manner ? Does some premise state that. May be
they were organized thats the reason they took the case which had
written writ.

(B) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(C) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or
the executive.
Not relevent. Trying to distract with external factors.

(D) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was
economic considerations.
Yes , It kind of concludes why "party could have a case only upon the payment",
why "judges invented new forms" , to get in more money.
It seems to be the soul movitation for the expansion in judiciary system.

(E) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did
not form a coherent body of law.
Inconsistent and Incoherent ?? Which premise states that ? Even if true, doesn't
really conclude anything.

Does'nt D have a cause and effect problem. The expansion lead to increased revenues, not the other war around. It is possible that the judges took the initiative to expand the scope of the judiciary for the betterment of citizens, not for economic consideration.

RITULA HELP ME ON THIS.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 12:13
To me, E was never a contender. No way we can make a conclusion that the first decsions were incoherent and inconsistent compared to the latter decisions. I chose D.
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 768
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 99

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 11:08
IMO D.
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 11:47
IMO D...wht is the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 19:34
od is d
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 09:04
Where the HELL did this question come from? If it is a real GMAT or LSAT question, I'll have a cow.

All the answers except (D) are clearly wrong: There is no information in the paragraph that remotely supports any of them. The problem with (D) is close to what rampuria points out, but not quite. The paragraph actually DOES state a cause-and-effect relationship: Increasing the number of forms led to greater revenue. The problem is that choice (D) says that the desire for more revenue was the MOTIVATION for increasing the number of forms, which is a totally different statement.

The presence of cause and effect does not prove motivation. For instance, it is a fact that prohibition of drugs CAUSES organized crime to become very rich and powerful. We cannot conclude from this that every politician who supports prohibition is MOTIVATED by wanting to make organized crime very rich and powerful.

There is nothing in the paragraph that gives us any information, one way or the other, about the judges' MOTIVATION. Thus, we cannot logically prove that they did it FOR THE PURPOSE of improving their economic situation. Sure, it is highly likely in the real world -- but that is not enough to make it a proper GMAT or LSAT inference.

UPDATE: Not having a cow. rampuria advised me privately that this is an Arco question. My faith in GMAC remains strong.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 37
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2009, 18:45
My choice is D
Senior Manager
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 312
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 37

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2009, 18:56
All I see in the question stimulus is fee and revenue and D talks about economic considerations and all others are totally un-related, so D is the answer based on elimination; if there was a "none of the above" that would've been the answer
_________________

Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip

Re: CR-Judges   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2009, 18:56

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 46 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by