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

It is currently 16 Oct 2019, 13:33

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

The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 67
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 05:45
7
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:18) correct 54% (01:36) wrong based on 307 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
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 991
Location: United States
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 11:12
7
3
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


This question is about meaning - where you place your words.

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
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1008
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 09:43
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 67
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 11:16
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 67
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '15
WE: Account Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 11:21
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


This question is about meaning - where you place your words.

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 :-D

Which level do you think this question is?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 991
Location: United States
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 11:43
pavan2185 wrote:
I think It can not be clearer than this :-D

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
User avatar
B
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 590
Re: The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2013, 11:58
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.
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 222
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2019, 13:14
The part of the sentence after semi colon says :-
" He was never deeply driven to win justice for them ( his clients )".
That means he just argued for justice for his clients.
So "just" should modify "argued".
Option A does that.
A is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt   [#permalink] 13 Apr 2019, 13:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The evidence suggests that Saul, a former attorney for the firm Walt

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





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