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

It is currently 25 Jun 2018, 12:30

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

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 171
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 12:47
3
13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:56) correct 54% (01:55) wrong based on 514 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
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1139
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2009, 23:02
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
_________________

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 116
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 104
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 11
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2011, 09:24
Can someone please explain this.....
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 235
Schools: Booth,NUS,St.Gallon
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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 :)

Expert Post
6 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 303
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 15:27
6
2
I'd be glad to help :-D

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


Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 277
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2012, 18:53
ChrisLele wrote:
I'd be glad to help :-D

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 :cry:
If you can guide on the difficulty level of this question, this will surely help.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2012
Posts: 14
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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."
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 222
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

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.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 164
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#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'.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 30
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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").
Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Apps time!
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 24
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.72
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2012, 03:27
Since BF1 is not a phenomenon, i eliminated it first up,picking up the wrong answer choice :(
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 3
WE: Business Development (Consulting)
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2012, 09:03
I couldn't find any other option better than C...Hence I chose C..
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 258
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

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

thanks
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 30
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2013, 00:04
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 293
Re: The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2013, 03:25
The sweet smell of success when u get a BOLD FACE CR right!!! Oh Yea!!! :D
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
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, 12:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 31 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 and Privacy Policy| 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®.