It is currently 15 Dec 2017, 19:10

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

finding tough time to even understand the argument ... Pls

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 7

finding tough time to even understand the argument ... Pls [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Nov 2008, 23:10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

finding tough time to even understand the argument ...
Pls help ..
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.
_________________

"CEO in making"

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 115

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Re: Cruel CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2008, 06:25
Quote:
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.


I'd go with B, because 'most cases' is too extreme and is not mentioned in the argument.

A.
Quote:
which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights
+ overall info, it can be inferred that the constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected
C.
Quote:
the exclusionary rule...has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts
- if the number was not significant this rule wouldn't have hampered these efforts.
D.
Quote:
In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again
- this is the main point of the argument
E.
Quote:
has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts
- author in the argument criticizes the treatment and it can be inferred that different appoaches to this problem are preferable for the author

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1530

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

Re: Cruel CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2008, 10:13
Another B.

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Re: Cruel CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2008, 12:36
B as well - the passage does not indicate this is true for 'most' cases

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3345

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: Cruel CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2008, 15:51
agreed with B..

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

Re: Cruel CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2008, 18:50
Good work; the answer should be B. The conclusion is the overall claim that the exclusionary rule has UNDULY hampered law enforcement efforts. This conclusion does depend (at least!) on the assumptions in C and E. The author clearly assumes A, because otherwise he would not say that the purpose of the rule was "laudable". He assumes D, because he could not logically state the two "even when" clauses if he did not consider the distinction in D to be viable.

The author does NOT assume B, however: "Unduly" hampering law enforcement efforts would only require a SIGNIFICANT number of cases (whatever that may be), not necessarily a MAJORITY.

Interestingly enough, about 90% of the participants in the North American justice system appear to have accepted this nonsense argument. The exclusionary rule is far more necessary, and far more often ignored, than most people realize.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

Re: Cruel CR   [#permalink] 29 Nov 2008, 18:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

finding tough time to even understand the argument ... Pls

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



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®.