It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 09:25

### 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

# Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2003, 11:35
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

1. Senator: Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a judge, as evidenced by Jones’s receiving a unanimous vote of “qualified” on the formal rating scale used by the Lawyer’s Committee. That committee advises the Senate on judicial appointments.

Which of the following if true, is the best reason for dismissing the senator’s claim that Jones is highly qualified?

a. Several members of the Lawyers’s Committee are not themselves qualified for judicial appointments.
b. The Lawyer’s Committee does not advise the Senate on all judicial appointments.
c. The lawyer’s Committee gives a unanimous vote of “qualified” only to those candidates for judicial appointments who meet the committee’s stringent standards for appropriate prior experience and ethical conduct.
d. The laywer’s committee gives a unanimous vote of either “highly qualified” or “very highly qualified” to 95 percent of all candidates for judicial appointments.
e. Jones, like most lawyers, is a member of the professional oraganisation that originally suggested the establishment of the lawyer’s committee.

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2003, 21:56
I am stuck between A and D......but finally I would go for A

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2003, 01:03
A) Several members of the Lawyers’s Committee are not qualified for judicial appointments (can be 2 out of 10000) -- a weak reason to dismiss the claim.

D) The committee gives a unanimous vote of either “highly qualified” or “very highly qualified” to 95 percent of all candidates. Therefore, Jones represents 5% left. A good reason to dismiss the claim that Jones is highly qualified to be a JUDGE? Probably not.

B) I vote for B. If the Committee does not advise the Senate on ALL appointments, the base for the claim is seriously damaged. For example, the Committee may advise for all appointments save for judges.

Correct?

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2003, 10:27
Perfect confusion...

My reasoning went on the same lines as Stolyar. And found "B" as the right answer.

But the answer is actually "D".

So i would still stick with my reasoning that "B" makes more sense as "Lawyer's Commitee might not advise on all decisions"

although the official answer says "D".

Any thoughts..

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 16

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

Location: Ukraine

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 01:31
Guys, sorry for outdated reply, but why not E.

For me D is definatelly out, may be all that 95% were really "very qual", and Jones was also qualified

B: "Lawyer's Commitee might not advise on all decisions", so what?

Sergei

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

SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 01:49
IMHO: E is possible but not so strong as B. John is a member of the organization that SUGGESTED (not created and not supervised) the body. Also, who he is in the organization? A receptionist? A proctologist?

If he currently works as a proctologist in the organization that suggested to convene the body a century ago, it is highly unlikely that John might influence the decision.

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 16

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

Location: Ukraine

### Show Tags

16 May 2003, 01:53
Stolyar,

Ok I agree that E is not the best choice, but I still do not like B either :D

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

Intern
Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Posts: 35

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

### Show Tags

18 May 2003, 02:21
I 'd go with d too,. D gives a strong reason to weaken the argument if 95% of them are rated as qualified, then the rating is of no use...

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

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 842

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 May 2003, 01:21
well...it is just senator's claim that Jones is higly qualified,,when infact he is just qualified. There is no criteria mentioned for being "highly Qualified"

But as the Lawyers committee gives a higher rating of "(very)highly qualified" to 95% of the members, Jones does not stand a chance..as he is just "qualified". Therefore, the answer D sounds logical to me

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Location: Sunnyvale, CA

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 11:00
I am stuck between A and D

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Location: Sunnyvale, CA

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 11:04
Can someone please give OA for this one...

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 14:50
d. The laywerâ€™s committee gives a unanimous vote of either â€œhighly qualifiedâ€

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 401

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Location: Sunnyvale, CA

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 15:46
(D) appears the best on careful analysis. It gives a sufficiently strong reason to reject Senator's claim ..

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2006, 15:54
will agree with D
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 109

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

Location: Louvain, Belgium

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2006, 11:40
guys , I think D is fine

if the commitee gave "highly qualifued" and "very highly qualified" to 95 % people and Jones has got "qualified", then he is in the worst 5% lot
this dismissed the claim of the senator

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

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2006, 03:53
Will go with D.

The senator argues that the judge is highly qualified on the basis of the "qualified" rating from the commitee, but the committee gives 95% of candidates either highly qualified or very highly qualified.
Then how can a candidate with qualified be better than the other 95% or be highly qualified

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 790

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2006, 06:51
D stands.

A) Weak reason.
C) Does not weaken the claim.
D) As jaynayak has explained.
E) Weak reason, and doesn't matter too much to the argument.
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

27 Jun 2006, 06:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by