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

It is currently 18 Nov 2018, 17:37

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 in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     06:00 PM EST

     07:00 PM EST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 12
The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 31 May 2018, 10:23
2
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:43) correct 24% (01:46) wrong based on 118 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Originally posted by inboxsaukar on 18 May 2015, 02:33.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 May 2018, 10:23, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7036
Re: The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2015, 08:09
1
inboxsaukar wrote:
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.


Hi,
only A gives us a reason that the solution is not feasible.
if the oral argument itself is a very small part of overall process then reducing oral argument will not change dramatically
ans A
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Posts: 152
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Real Estate
Schools: Johnson '21
The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2018, 01:58
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.
Explanation: Lets assume a case take 2 hours and the oral argument's share is only 30 minutes. That means time involved in decision is 3 times more than the time taken for oral argument. So Court doesn't have to decide cases without hearing oral arguments rather minimize the time involved in making decisions - CORRECT

B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year.
Explanation: That's an extreme solution - INCORRECT

C. Most authorities agree that 160 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
Explanation: IRRELEVANT

D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument.
Explanation: IRRELEVANT

E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved.
Explanation: IRRELEVANT

Hence I chose A
GMAT Club Bot
The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n &nbs [#permalink] 19 Sep 2018, 01:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous n

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


Copyright

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®.