It is currently 23 Jun 2017, 10:57

### 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

# The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 305
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 06:01
1
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (02:46) correct 54% (01:59) wrong based on 379 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Although discussed at the-president-s-nominees-to-federal-circuit-courts-have-been-85434.html but I am not satisfied. Can someone explain the OA?

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface pay which of the following roles?

A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 277
Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 08:24
I really dont understand how option C is the solution.Even if the author accepts the first bold part as true,how can the candidates in nexus with the lobbyists prove to be conservative ??
_________________

+1 if you like my explanation .Thanks

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 304

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 15:27
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED

The author doesn’t actually disagree with the first bold-faced statement. If you read the second sentence it says “a more notable finding.”

Thus the author agrees with the first statement (“…acknowledge as true...”), but believes that there is an even more interesting/titillating phenomenon: that the recently appointed judges have strong ties to certain industries, i.e. energy and mining.

He backs up this assertion in the second bold-faced sentence: those judges with industry ties were far more likely to be appointed to courts in which their respective industries had special interests (smell like corruption to me!).

This last part back ups the argument’s conclusion that a notable finding amongst the current crop of judges is their industry ties. And thus, corresponds to “…evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

This is the exact wording from (C), which I've reproduced below:

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

Hope that helped!
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 305

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 18:53
ChrisLele wrote:

The author doesn’t actually disagree with the first bold-faced statement. If you read the second sentence it says “a more notable finding.”

Thus the author agrees with the first statement (“…acknowledge as true...”), but believes that there is an even more interesting/titillating phenomenon: that the recently appointed judges have strong ties to certain industries, i.e. energy and mining.

He backs up this assertion in the second bold-faced sentence: those judges with industry ties were far more likely to be appointed to courts in which their respective industries had special interests (smell like corruption to me!).

This last part back ups the argument’s conclusion that a notable finding amongst the current crop of judges is their industry ties. And thus, corresponds to “…evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

This is the exact wording from (C), which I've reproduced below:

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.

Hope that helped!

Thanks Chris. Kudos. Yes, ur reply surely helped. I didnt like Option C because of the word phenomenon
If you can guide on the difficulty level of this question, this will surely help.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 358
Concentration: Operations, Strategy

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2012, 02:14
IMO C nice explanation above
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2014, 17:25
1
KUDOS
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 09:49
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.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 60
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2016, 08:16
need some clarity on this. first sentence says nominees are conservative and second sentence starts with a "but". Sounds like a contrast.
for example " it was told that Jim was the topper in his class.But his grades were rather low". So we have all the reason to believe that Jim is not actually the topper.

Last edited by pkm9995109794 on 29 Feb 2016, 07:16, edited 1 time in total.
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1025
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2016, 02:07
pkm9995109794, check out ChrisLele's explanation above. The first statement isn't actually cited as support for the argument. The author is basically saying "Hey, it's true that these nominees are conservative. But I want to point out something else: they are more notable for their corporate ties. Here's some evidence of that." So the conclusion (bolded above) is followed by premises. The first statement is something that the author thinks is true, but that they don't find as interesting.

Here's another example:

True, Candidate X is inexperienced. But what's more important is that his policies are dangerous. If enacted, they would lead to unprecedented levels of poverty and environmental degradation.

The author agrees with the first sentence, but doesn't think it's as important the impact of Candidate X's policy. The second and third sentences produce the actual conclusion and premise.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 29 Feb 2016, 02:07
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Some members have criticized the club's president 1 02 Jun 2017, 19:34
10 DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court 2 27 May 2015, 15:18
9 It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal 14 14 Jul 2016, 22:54
5 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 9 22 Jan 2016, 23:41
9 The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 18 29 Apr 2017, 09:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by