It is currently 19 Apr 2018, 12:42

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 judged

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

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 46
Schools: Smeal" 20
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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 ??
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 159
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 judged [#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.....

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 178
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
anyone,please help
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 211
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 judged [#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!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Dec 2015
Posts: 27
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 18
Location: United States (NJ)
Schools: Wharton Exec '19
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V41
GPA: 3.4
Premium Member
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
anyone,please help



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
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 93
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 29 Feb 2016, 07:16
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.

Originally posted by pkm9995109794 on 28 Feb 2016, 08:16.
Last edited by pkm9995109794 on 29 Feb 2016, 07:16, edited 1 time in total.
Expert Post
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1225
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Reviews Badge
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3341
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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?
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?


How to use this forum in THE BEST way?


New --> How ApplicantLab made me reach my 10 years long MBA dream?

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jan 2018
Posts: 53
Location: India
GPA: 2.85
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Apr 2018, 21:41
Hi ,

Can someone please clarify this?
Plus also explain how to identify a generalization /pattern /phenomena and exceptions.

Thanks
_________________

Regards ,
Dhruv
_________________
Kudos will encourage many others, like me.

Please Give +1 Kudos if you liked the post!!

Thanks :-D

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2725
Premium Member
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2018, 11:54
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 president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged   [#permalink] 13 Apr 2018, 11:54

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  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®.