Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 03:49

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 0

The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 02:02
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights, the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions. However, human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution. Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the courtâ€™s decisions. Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other, it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument

(A) ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that claim

(B) seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and the decisions based on that view are often accepted as correct

(C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others

(D) makers an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole

(E) concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 02:11
The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights, the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions.
However, human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution.
Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the courtâ€™s decisions.
Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other, it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. <-- conclusion

The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument

(A) ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that claim
- This should be the answer. It ignores that the court may need to act outside the explicit provisions of the constitution and focuses on a single example (of power abuse).

(B) seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and the decisions based on that view are often accepted as correct
- The argument is not seeking to defend a view, but rather to provide critical though about a generally accepted view.

(C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others
- No one is making any sort of profit here

(D) makes an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole
- here the passage does not assume anything along this line.

(E) concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false
- No idea what htis means.

A it is.
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1482
Location: Germany
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 347 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 14:22
tough one !

C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others => because..."However, human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution." => the court has to refer to the constitution, otherwise other parties will control human rights and will eventually gain advantage or profit...
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 455
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 15:59
i go with D

one part says " the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions".

The other part says "supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution", consitution rules supreme court

when combine 2 parts together, author assumes they will not bound together because of their individual difference.
Manager
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95
Location: Irvine, CA
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 16:18
after reading it 4 or 5 times, and copying it on paper, and then printing it out.
I will go for D.

my reasoning is:

"the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions."

so, it is applying an unwarranted assumption.

what is the OA?
_________________

discipline is what I need.

Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 898
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 18:14
Tough one..
I will go with (C)..
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 20:09
keep up, guys

still no right answer appears.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 20:46
What the passage says here is the role of the uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of governemtn power. Sometimes to do this, the supreme court must resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the consittution.

However, the author reasoned that this shuold not be the case since human rights will be sujected to the judicial power of the supreme court.

We want to find an aswer that the author's reasoning is wrong.

E should be the answer. It concludes that the court does not uphold abuses against human rights ('concludes that a particular premise is false'. The premise being the first sentence which says the purpose of the court is to protect abuses against human rights).

But it is equally possible for this premise to be true (that is, it is indeed the case that the court protects human rights), and some other premise false (The premise being that the court will act injustly, and only a constitution can prevent that from happening).

E it is.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2236
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 20:56
E for me too. Three premises lead to two inconsistent conclusions.
I: supreme court must upheld all human right
II. Constitution does not have provision for all human right (so supreme court has to rely on other standards)
III. Other standards are not objective standard (therefore cannot be relied upon)

The conclusion was that I is wrong, but it is equally possible that II or III is false.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 21:02
perfectly put my explanation in point form.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2005, 22:02
ywilfred wrote:
perfectly put my explanation in point form.

in fact, your point form shows the reasoning more clearly than mine. Great stuff, honghu ! =)
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 00:03
HongHu wrote:
E for me too. Three premises lead to two inconsistent conclusions.
I: supreme court must upheld all human right
II. Constitution does not have provision for all human right (so supreme court has to rely on other standards)
III. Other standards are not objective standard (therefore cannot be relied upon)

The conclusion was that I is wrong, but it is equally possible that II or III is false.

HongHu, I still cannot get it.

Do you meant that the premise II which the author made might be true or false?

Is the following what you mean?

IF 'Constitution does not have provision for all human right', THEN 'it can be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights'

on the contrary

IF 'Constitution does have provision for all human right', THEN 'it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights'

Thanks
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 00:16
chunjuwu wrote:
HongHu wrote:
E for me too. Three premises lead to two inconsistent conclusions.
I: supreme court must upheld all human right
II. Constitution does not have provision for all human right (so supreme court has to rely on other standards)
III. Other standards are not objective standard (therefore cannot be relied upon)

The conclusion was that I is wrong, but it is equally possible that II or III is false.

HongHu, I still cannot get it.

Do you meant that the premise II which the author made might be true or false?

Does the following be what you mean?

IF 'Constitution does not have provision for all human right', THEN 'it can be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights'

on the contrary

IF 'Constitution does have provision for all human right', THEN 'it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights'

Thanks

chunjuwu,

E says "concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false"

At the beginning at the passage, we are told the court protects all human rights against abuses of government power.
The author concludes that "cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power".

Here, the first part of the answer is satisfied. The author concludes that a particular premise is false (court does not protect human rights)

Now while it is possible for the court to abuse the judicial power they currently have, it is equally possible for the court not to do just that (i.e. abuse power). So here, the next part of the answer is satisfied - "it is equally possible for that premise to be true"

Finally, if the court does not abuse their judicial power, then the premise that a constitiution to govern the court's ruling is false.
Here it satisfies the last part of the answer choice "... and some other premise false"
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 10:06
Thanks, ywilfred

Nice explanation.

Totally agree with you.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2236
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 10:43
Yes, it is equally possible that the consititution does cover all human rights, or that there's other objective standards that the supreme court can rely upon in addtion to the constitution.
Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 246
Location: Rockville
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 12:50
wow this was possibly the toughest problem i have seen
thanks
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 455
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 13:04
isn't E similar to D? can someone differentiate for me?
Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 246
Location: Rockville
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 14:32
No D almost seems to say that what is true because of that one case is true for every case
E as hong hu shows elaborates that while it is not necessary that the court uphold human rights it possibly could and maybe it is best that it should but that shows that the premise that courts always go by the constitution is false
hence the I: false...can be true...II:false
anyone correct me if you think i am wrong
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5045
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 17:58
D is not similar because the passage has not made any reasoning along this line.

D says "makes an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole".

D type of answers are common in AWA AA as well. What it says basically is if some member in a group does something, then this phenomenon observed can be translated to all members of the group.

There's nothing in the passage that suggests that. Consider this example:

"XYZ bakery is facing declining sales. AAA bakery, which used to operate in the same city as XYZ bakery has just moved downtown and they are now making a profit. So XYZ bakery will make a profit if they move downtown."

Here, we see the unwarranted assumption -- That XYZ will make a profit moving downtown.
And the author thinks this is true because what is true for each member of a group --- AAA bakery moving downtown and making a profit
Must also be true of the group as a whole --- XYZ making a profit if they move downtown.

Now look in the original passage again and see if you can such reasoning made by the author. The answer is no, and so (D) cannot be the answer.

Let me know what you think.
10 Mar 2005, 17:58
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Harris: Currently, hybrid animals are not protected by 5 12 Aug 2010, 00:46
2 In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone 23 14 Aug 2011, 21:32
1 Raymond Burr played the role of lawyer Perry Mason on 10 08 Jun 2010, 19:10
According to a recent study on financial roles, one-third of 7 21 Apr 2008, 11:33
The president s nominees to federal circuit courts have been 1 03 Feb 2008, 22:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.