It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 13:18

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

Intern
Status: Apps time!
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 2

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.72
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Oct 2012, 09:20
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:05) correct 56% (02:01) wrong based on 423 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

20 Oct 2012, 13:42
nitzz wrote:
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.

A: BF1 can be a generalization, but it's certainly not being attacked by the author.
B: BF2 is not the author's conclusion. It's a supporting evidence.
C: Correct, although I don't think BF1 is necessarily a phenomenon that the author "accepts." It's the opinion of others that he merely restates.
D: BF1 is not the author's position. BF2 is not related to BF1.
E: Nothing in this passage suggests there's anything that can be interpreted as an exception to a rule, with perhaps the .. ahem, exception of the last sentence (the level of extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees *may* be a historical exception since it's deemed to be "unprecedented").

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: Apps time!
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 2

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.72
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 03:27
Since BF1 is not a phenomenon, i eliminated it first up,picking up the wrong answer choice

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Oct 2012, 09:03
I couldn't find any other option better than C...Hence I chose C..

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 21:27
Can anyone explain the process of elimination for this question?

thanks
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 23:17
greatps24 wrote:
Can anyone explain the process of elimination for this question?

thanks

A: The second is *not* an attack. It's an evidence supporting the first boldface.
B: The second BF is *not* a conclusion.
C: Let's say maybe correct.
D: The first may or may not be the author's position. The author doesn't claim that this is his or her observation. He merely states that the judges "have been judged" to be too conservative.
E: The first is not an exception to anything.

SO it's C.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Feb 2013, 00:04
1
KUDOS
The BF1 states "The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues"
It is followed by author's statement : 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

I concluded with option A because this is the closest choice where author opposes the stated passage. In BF2, he continues to indicate that these judges are appointed in the courts which are very critical.
Also in the BF2 : Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 330

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 291

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Oct 2013, 03:25
The sweet smell of success when u get a BOLD FACE CR right!!! Oh Yea!!! :D

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 291

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 May 2015, 08:35
nitzz wrote:
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.

I am not able to understand how second statement supports author's conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Intern
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 12

Location: United States (NJ)
Schools: Wharton Exec '19
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V41
GPA: 3.4
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Jan 2016, 23:41
ssriva2 wrote:
nitzz wrote:
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.

I am not able to understand how second statement supports author's conclusion.

Hi

I'll try to explain

For the second Bold Face first see what conclusion it is trying to work on

"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"

Blue is premise and Red is Conclusion. The second Bold face starts with Further indicating it to be a premise indicator hence Option C is correct where the second BF is supporting the conclusion

Hope this helps a little

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 12

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 22 Jan 2016, 23:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by