It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 03:01

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

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

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 260

Kudos [?]: 218 [2], given: 4

Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 12:47
2
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

57% (01:37) correct 43% (01:50) wrong based on 529 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

Kudos [?]: 218 [2], given: 4

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 145

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 9

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 15:30
IEsailor 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



"C" for me.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 9

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Posts: 8

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

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 16:55
I will choose B, someone break it down please.

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

VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1286

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 10

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 23:02
Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 10

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 145

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 9

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2009, 01:14
amit2k9 wrote:
Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.
This is not the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 9

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2009, 06:13
Geez, I hate boldfaces...

Boldface 1: Issue stated
"But a review..." <-- the author refutes the issue

Boldface 2: second issue
"Independent observers..." <-- the author explains why the issue 1 may have occurred

Therefore, E for me.

OA?


IEsailor 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

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 260

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 4

Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2009, 08:51
OA is C

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 4

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2009, 09:50
I am confused, where is the conclusion?

OA- C. Says evidence to author's conclusion. What is author's conclusion?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 70

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

Re: Tough one - BOLDFACE [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2011, 09:24
Can someone please explain this.....

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

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

Show Tags

New post 07 Mar 2012, 19:44
here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

Quote:
"The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well."

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 401 [0], given: 22

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Mar 2012, 23:02
We cannot say this "observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented." is the conclusion but from the argument we can judge that author is towards this side..

Now we need to identify how first bold face affecting this author support
Same for the Second bold face.

Now first is observation(fact) that refute authors view
Second is supporting evidence

C
_________________

The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.

Kudos [?]: 401 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 8

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

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2012, 00:05
I think the answer is C . Here the first part is basically a observation which the author believes to be true and second part is the reasoning which provides support.
_________________

_________________
Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 8

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 351

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 31

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2012, 01:56
C good explanations above
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 31

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 37 [2], given: 40

Schools: Smeal" 20
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2014, 12:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
hurdle7 wrote:
here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

Quote:
"The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well."



Yes, I too have the same question in mind....who do manhattan and others who have replied in the forum say that the first bold statement was accepted by the author as true when the argument is trying is oppose the position that the nominees are conservative.

Going by the explanations given, so does 'being conservative on hot-button issues' mean that these nominees are lobbyists for industries and do not raise their voice for the issues that will affect these industries and conservatively support these industries rather than fighting for the issues created by these industries ?? In that case, what is the use of the word 'but' as hurdle7 rightly points out ??

Kudos [?]: 37 [2], given: 40

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 111

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
Schools: Boston U '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2014, 03:46
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 - Author does not attack first but reinforces it.

B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment - second is not author's conclusion

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion - first is not phenomenon but author's stand.


D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position - Correct

E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception - First is not exception but the generalization presented in the argument.

Correct me if i am wrong in my reasoning...
_________________

Hard-work, Perseverance and Commitment.....

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 111

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 229

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 93

Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2015, 11:20
I have exactly the same doubt. Can someone please from Manhattan please help us in resolving this doubt.

Vetrik wrote:
hurdle7 wrote:
here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

Quote:
"The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well."



Yes, I too have the same question in mind....who do manhattan and others who have replied in the forum say that the first bold statement was accepted by the author as true when the argument is trying is oppose the position that the nominees are conservative.

Going by the explanations given, so does 'being conservative on hot-button issues' mean that these nominees are lobbyists for industries and do not raise their voice for the issues that will affect these industries and conservatively support these industries rather than fighting for the issues created by these industries ?? In that case, what is the use of the word 'but' as hurdle7 rightly points out ??

_________________

Middle of nowhere!

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 93

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Dec 2015
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 57

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

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2015, 13:12
Hey, can someone answer this? Ron has a great explanation on the MGMAT blog, but it'd be helpful to see another viewpoint. I happened upon the right answer after banging my head against the wall for 3 mins.

Also, I found ron's explanation comical of opinion vs phenomenon:
"My friend Alan is a jerk." <- opinion
"Girls always say my friend Alan is a jerk." <- phenomenon

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 57

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2017, 08:55
The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well.

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 72

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2492

Kudos [?]: 784 [0], given: 64

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2017, 09:03
Hi,

You someone from experts confirm the OA for this?

Also, what is the reasoning behind the same?
_________________

V21 ---> V40!

Kudos [?]: 784 [0], given: 64

Re: The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been   [#permalink] 29 Apr 2017, 09:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.