|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
09 May 2025, 00:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:50) correct
22%
(02:06)
wrong
based on 138
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous number of cases it agrees to decide. The Court schedules and hears 160 hours of oral argument each year, and 108 hours of next year’s term will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Certainly the Court cannot be asked to increase its already burdensome hours. The most reasonable long-range solution to this problem is to allow the Court to decide many cases without hearing oral argument; in this way the Court might eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides each year.
Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the feasibility of the solution suggested?
A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case.
B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year.
C. Most authorities agree that 160 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument.
E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved.
Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the feasibility of the solution suggested?
A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case.
B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year.
C. Most authorities agree that 160 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument.
E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved.
01 Jun 2025, 14:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The passage suggests that the number of cases heard by the Supreme Court each year might eventually be increased dramatically if the Supreme Court were allowed to decide many cases without the customary oral argument. If A is true, however, then the number of cases decided by the Supreme Court is primarily determined by time other than the time spent hearing oral argument. Thus, the time spent hearing oral argument does not constitute a significant bottleneck. So this choice could be used rather well to argue against the proposal made in the passage.
B is incorrect. This argues not against the feasibility of the proposed solution; it merely warns that the benefits from it would be delayed. The fact that, in view of this answer choice, there would probably not be any significant immediate relief from the burdens of hearing oral argument is irrelevant: the passage expressly concerns itself with finding a long-range solution. C is also incorrect. The thrust of the proposal is to make the 160 hours available for hearing oral argument go farther. The person making the proposal accepts the 160 hours as an upper limit. Thus, this statement supports rather than argues against the proposed solution. The fourth answer choice is incorrect. From a knowledge of the information in this answer choice no further conclusions regarding the proposal follow. This information is simply part of the current state of affairs that the proposal is designed to improve. The last choice is also incorrect. The concern of the choice-the cost to the parties involved—plays no part whatever in the argument developed in the passage; the passage is concerned solely with time-related limitations on the number of cases the Supreme Court is able to decide.
Moderators:
