It is currently 20 Feb 2018, 22:53

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Posts: 638
Location: India
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2017, 09:03
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:33) correct 31% (01:56) wrong based on 125 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases it agrees to decide. Honourable Court schedules and hears 240 hours of oral argument each year, and 178 hours of next year's term will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Surely, the Court cannot be asked to increase its already onerous hours. The most reasonable long-range solution to this problem is to allow the Court to decide many cases without hearing oral argument; in this way the Court might eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides each year.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the feasibility of the solution suggested?

A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case.
B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year.
C. Most authorities agree that 240 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument.
E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

If you liked my post, kindly give me a Kudos. Thanks.

Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1329
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2017, 20:45
rohan2345 wrote:
Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases it agrees to decide. Honourable Court schedules and hears 240 hours of oral argument each year, and 178 hours of next year's term will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Surely, the Court cannot be asked to increase its already onerous hours. The most reasonable long-range solution to this problem is to allow the Court to decide many cases without hearing oral argument; in this way the Court might eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides each year.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the feasibility of the solution suggested?


A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case.
Correct. This choice weakens the argument. If hearing oral argument is only a small part, then reducing the processing time in this stage won't help reduce the total time to deciding a case.

B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year.
This choice strengthens the argument. If the Court isn't allowed to avoid hearing oral argument, it is expected that allowing the Court could help the Court solve more cases.

C. Most authorities agree that 240 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
This choice strengthens the argument. If 240 is the limit, allowing the Court to avoid oral argument definitely helps the Court have more time with other cases.

D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument.
Then allowing the Court the right to avoid oral argument will make the Court have much more time with other cases.

E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved.
This choice is irrelevant to the argument
_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Re: Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2017, 20:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

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®.