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

 It is currently 22 Jan 2019, 15:36

### 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 January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winners of the GMAT game show

January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.
• ### Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

January 26, 2019

January 26, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

# The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 69
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 04:45
5
3
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:20) correct 48% (01:38) wrong based on 269 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients
; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A. just argued for justice for his clients
B. argued just for justice for his clients
C. argued just for his clients' justice
D. argued for only justice for his clients
E. argued for just his clients' justice
Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1010
Location: United States
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 10:12
6
2
pavan2185 wrote:
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients
; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A. just argued for justice for his clients
B. argued just for justice for his clients
C. argued just for his clients' justice
D. argued for only justice for his clients
E. argued for just his clients' justice

The intended meaning is: Saul just argued for justice for his clients, but ironically, he was never driven to win justice for them.
"Just" is placed before verb "argue", technically, "just" should modify verb --> It means the attorney did only 1 action.

Let see all choices:
A. just argued for justice for his clients
Correct. Retain original meaning.

B. argued just for justice for his clients
Wrong. Change meaning: "just argued for X" differs from "argued just for X"
(1) "just argued for X" --> JUST modifies verb "argue". It means the attorney did only 1 action - argued.
(2) "argued just for X --> Just modifies noun "justice". It means the attorney argued for 1 thing - justice.

Other examples:
I just drink water --> focus on verb - drink --> I only do 1 action - drink, I do not eat, I do not play, for example.
I drink just water --> focus on noun - water --> Among many drinks, I drink only 1 type - water, I do not drink soda, I do not drink coffee, for example.

C. argued just for his clients' justice
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued just for X"

D. argued for only justice for his clients
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued for only X"

E. argued for just his clients' justice
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued for just X".

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

##### General Discussion
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1109
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 08:43
2
pavan2185 wrote:
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients
; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A. just argued for justice for his clients
B. argued just for justice for his clients
C. argued just for his clients' justice
D. argued for only justice for his clients
E. argued for just his clients' justice

Good one.
It is one of those questions where you are supposed to read the entire sentence VERY carefully and get the gist of it.
The latter part of the sentence is a clause separated by a semi colon, implying that it is closely related to the previous clause.
The latter part says that Saul was never deeply driven to win justice for his clients. What we get from this clause is that the we must get something about Saul that gives us evidence for the second clause to be true.
ONLY A does this. A says that Saul only argued for justice for his clients. He didn't do anything that could have been done to win justice for his clients.
Hope this helps.
Regards.

P.S.: Please don't forget to mention the source of the questions.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 69
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 10:16
Marcab wrote:
pavan2185 wrote:
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients
; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A. just argued for justice for his clients
B. argued just for justice for his clients
C. argued just for his clients' justice
D. argued for only justice for his clients
E. argued for just his clients' justice

Good one.
It is one of those questions where you are supposed to read the entire sentence VERY carefully and get the gist of it.
The latter part of the sentence is a clause separated by a semi colon, implying that it is closely related to the previous clause.
The latter part says that Saul was never deeply driven to win justice for his clients. What we get from this clause is that the we must get something about Saul that gives us evidence for the second clause to be true.
ONLY A does this. A says that Saul only argued for justice for his clients. He didn't do anything that could have been done to win justice for his clients.
Hope this helps.
Regards.

P.S.: Please don't forget to mention the source of the questions.

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. I did not know how to specify the sources that are nt in the list. Should I just give the name in the Topic name field?
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 69
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 10:21
pqhai wrote:
pavan2185 wrote:
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt and Waltson, just
argued for justice for his clients
; according to his closest colleagues, he was never deeply driven to
win justice for them.
A. just argued for justice for his clients
B. argued just for justice for his clients
C. argued just for his clients' justice
D. argued for only justice for his clients
E. argued for just his clients' justice

The intended meaning is: Saul just argued for justice for his clients, but ironically, he was never driven to win justice for them.
"Just" is placed before verb "argue", technically, "just" should modify verb --> It means the attorney did only 1 action.

Let see all choices:
A. just argued for justice for his clients
Correct. Retain original meaning.

B. argued just for justice for his clients
Wrong. Change meaning: "just argued for X" differs from "argued just for X"
(1) "just argued for X" --> JUST modifies verb "argue". It means the attorney did only 1 action - argued.
(2) "argued just for X --> Just modifies noun "justice". It means the attorney argued for 1 thing - justice.

Other examples:
I just drink water --> focus on verb - drink --> I only do 1 action - drink, I do not eat, I do not play, for example.
I drink just water --> focus on noun - water --> Among many drinks, I drink only 1 type - water, I do not drink soda, I do not drink coffee, for example.

C. argued just for his clients' justice
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued just for X"

D. argued for only justice for his clients
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued for only X"

E. argued for just his clients' justice
Wrong. Same as B. Change meaning. "just argued for X" differs from "argued for just X".

Hope it helps.

I think It can not be clearer than this

Which level do you think this question is?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1010
Location: United States
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 10:43
pavan2185 wrote:
I think It can not be clearer than this

Which level do you think this question is?

Dear pavan 2185.
It's so difficult to peg a level to a particular question. But IMO, I think this question is at 700. (This question is not easy as it appears, it requires you to read the question very carefully).

Best.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 611
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 10:58
pavan2185 wrote:
I did not know how to specify the sources that are nt in the list. Should I just give the name in the Topic name field?

If it's not present in the tag list,you can provide the source in the question text itself, right at the bottom.

Thanks.
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3575
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2017, 04:21
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: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney &nbs [#permalink] 21 Mar 2017, 04:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by