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

 It is currently 20 Feb 2019, 14:30

### 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 February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

February 20, 2019

February 20, 2019

08:00 PM EST

09:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. Wednesday, February 20th at 8 PM EST

February 21, 2019

February 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 143
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2009, 11:47
3
37
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (02:15) correct 55% (02:22) wrong based on 827 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
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 301
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 14:27
7
2

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

##### General Discussion
Director
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 999
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2009, 22:02
1
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
Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 95
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2009, 00:14
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.
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 94
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2009, 05:13
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
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 10
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2009, 08:50
I am confused, where is the conclusion?

OA- C. Says evidence to author's conclusion. What is author's conclusion?
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 08:24
Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 188
Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 07:24
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

Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 241
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2012, 17:53
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.
Intern
Joined: 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 13
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2012, 18:44
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."
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 184
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 judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2012, 22:02
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.

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 137
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2012, 23:05
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'.

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 22
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2012, 12:42
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").
Intern
Status: Apps time!
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.72
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 02:27
Since BF1 is not a phenomenon, i eliminated it first up,picking up the wrong answer choice
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 2
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2012, 08:03
I couldn't find any other option better than C...Hence I chose C..
Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 20:27
Can anyone explain the process of elimination for this question?

thanks
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 22
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 22:17
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.
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 23:04
1
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
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 201
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2013, 02:25
The sweet smell of success when u get a BOLD FACE CR right!!! Oh Yea!!! :D
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 46
Schools: Smeal" 20
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2014, 11:45
2
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 ??
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged   [#permalink] 16 Nov 2014, 11:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by