It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 21:11

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 refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

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

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 621

Kudos [?]: 284 [1], given: 51

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2011, 01:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

73% (02:07) correct 27% (01:26) wrong based on 138

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

69% (00:44) correct 31% (00:42) wrong based on 144

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

39% (00:43) correct 61% (00:28) wrong based on 135

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

67% (00:22) correct 33% (00:23) wrong based on 135

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

88% (00:12) correct 12% (00:04) wrong based on 128

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

57% (00:52) correct 43% (00:40) wrong based on 122

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

33% (00:33) correct 67% (00:28) wrong based on 115

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

41% (01:39) correct 59% (01:01) wrong based on 102

HideShow timer Statistics

Quote:
Part of New RC Series- Please check this link for more questions



The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.

Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.

There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as non extraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.

Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to

(A) define a set of terms
(B) outline a new approach
(C) describe a current problem
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
C



2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?

(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
C



3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?

(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
A



4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to

(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B



5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?

(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking.
(E) The exception is too limited.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
D



6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between

(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses

(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable

(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense

(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition

(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B



7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
A



8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
D

[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #1 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #2 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #3 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #4 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #5 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #6 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #7 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #8 OA

_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.


Last edited by Gnpth on 12 Oct 2017, 14:28, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question, OAs added

Kudos [?]: 284 [1], given: 51

3 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1964

Kudos [?]: 2102 [3], given: 376

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2011, 03:56
3
This post received
KUDOS
Para1: Introduction of political offense exception in extradition treaty.
Para2: Inception of the political offense exception.
Para3: Categorizing offenses as political and common; political offense is further categorized into pure, relative. Mentions the complexity involved in separating few political offense from common crimes.
Para4: Suggestion for political exception clause amendment.

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
(A) define a set of terms. [Note: I'll take this out as she did describe few words, such as political offense exception, pure and relative political offense, common crime but the main idea is different.]
(B) outline a new approach [Note: She does mention about the new approach but she doesn't provide any method on how to approach the suggestion.]
(C) describe a current problem. [Yes, this is highly likely as the entire passage revolves around the political offense exception clause and the problems associated with it.]
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information


2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?
(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated. The principle started at the time of monarchies but exception started when government took over.
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts Terrorist not mentioned in para2.
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies. True.
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes. Not mentioned.
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders. This is true about monarchies and not for governments.

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense. Because this distinction decides whether to extradite the offender and the most probable answer.
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes. Less likely because pure political offenses are clearly defined.
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses. Both pure and relative political offenses will prohibit extradition.
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage It is same as C.
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition No other exception is discussed.

4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to
(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
Possible. "and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability"
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. This is highly likely.
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses Not mentioned.
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offensesNot mentioned.
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offensesNot mentioned.

5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking. No doubt.
(E) The exception is too limited.


6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated. Not mentioned.
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism. Not really useful against terrorism.
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally establishedNever is an exaggeration.
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.Guess.

will provide the OA after discussion[/quote]
_________________

~fluke

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 2102 [3], given: 376

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 12 [1], given: 6

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2011, 04:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
P1: Introduces political offense exception
P2: Origins of PO exception
P3: Explains different PO's -- pure, common, relative.
P4: balance the competing needs and what needs to be done.

1) Author describes current problem of PO exception and issue with relative vs pure offenses.

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


2) Look in P2

It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


3) Author considers problematic the common crimes that are inseperable from political offenses. "However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable"

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
A


4) Primary purpose is: "The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country."

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
B


5) Inference: The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


6) Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


7) When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
A


8) End of paragraph 3.

Ans
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D

_________________

My MBA journey : mbafanatic.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: 12 [1], given: 6

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 621

Kudos [?]: 284 [0], given: 51

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2011, 05:01
well , here is the OA ,
CCABDBAD.

i will come to this passage after posting a few more passages.
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Kudos [?]: 284 [0], given: 51

TOEFL Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1602

Kudos [?]: 601 [0], given: 40

Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2011, 08:29
My take :

1 - C

2 - C

3 - A

4 - B

5 - D

6 - B

7 - A

8 - D
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 601 [0], given: 40

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10133

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2014, 03:10
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.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2014
Posts: 1

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

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2015, 06:30
I do not clearly understand why 4 is A. Because from the passage I think that it says about that the "relative"crimes there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense. So I believe that the problem concerns "relative" crimes, which lay in the middle between "pure" crimes and common crimes.
HELP

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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 321

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 57

GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.5
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2016, 04:06
CCABDBAD OMG all correct :twisted: , even after so much disturbance :)
_________________

#If you like my post , please encourage me by giving Kudos :)

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 57

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 321

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 57

GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.5
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2016, 04:15
pierpcosta93 wrote:
I do not clearly understand why 4 is A. Because from the passage I think that it says about that the "relative"crimes there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense. So I believe that the problem concerns "relative" crimes, which lay in the middle between "pure" crimes and common crimes.
HELP


Hi,
I think you are talking about 3rd ques

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

In 2nd passage it is clearly mentioned that
“Pure” political offenses recognized as non extraditable. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense .

I you read these lines it clearly mentions where the confusion lies i.e. between common crimes and relative political offenses. Whereas "pure" political offenses are explicilty mentioned as non extraditable.
_________________

#If you like my post , please encourage me by giving Kudos :)

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 57

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2017
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 16

GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2017, 00:49
The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.
Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.
There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as nonextraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally nonextraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.
Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.
[1]. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
(A) define a set of terms
(B) outline a new approach
(C) describe a current problem
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

[2]. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?
(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders

[3].Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

[*4]. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to
(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses

[5]. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking.
(E) The exception is too limited.

[6]. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

[7]. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

[8]. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offence exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 16

Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1256

Kudos [?]: 1016 [0], given: 61

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2017, 01:48

Kudos [?]: 1016 [0], given: 61

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 176

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2017, 05:35
HEy GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Can you explain the below 2 questions?

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

CC: devanshu92

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 176

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Aug 2017
Posts: 1

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

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2017, 03:36
need explanation for last one

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Sep 2016
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2017, 23:01
Lost in question no. 8

can someone explain that part ?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1189

Kudos [?]: 1902 [0], given: 454

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2017, 23:23
pikolo2510 wrote:
HEy GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Can you explain the below 2 questions?


Quote:
7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

The author believes that "the only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country." The author also states that "international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes." From this statement we can infer that, in cases of international terrorism, one could always argue that the political offense exception could be applied. According to the author, that would "offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability." In other words, if terrorist acts can always be considered political, then terrorists can easily avoid extradition and criminal liability.

The intent of the political offense exception was to protect people from unfair treatment, not to protect criminals such as terrorists. Thus, the passage suggests that the author would agree that the political offense exception has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use, so choice (A) is the best answer.


Quote:
8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

Refer to the following portion:

Quote:
there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable... When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception.


The author's point is that it is hard to draw the line between a common crime (extraditable) and a relative political offense (non extraditable). Therefore, according to the author, "the international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception." But if the political offense exception were rarely used to protect persons accused of relative political offenses, then the problematic situation described the author would not be such a concern.

In other words, the author is concerned that the political offense exception unjustly protects those who commit relative political offenses. But if use of the political offense exception to protect those who commit relative political offenses has sharply decreased, then the author's concern would be less relevant.

Thus, choice (D) would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation to find an alternative to the political offense exception.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

GMAT Ninja Wednesdays LIVE on YouTube
Join us, and ask your questions in advance!

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 1902 [0], given: 454

Re: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused   [#permalink] 05 Nov 2017, 23:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

  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®.