Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 31 May 2018, 11:23
Originally posted by inboxsaukar on 18 May 2015, 03:33.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 May 2018, 11:23, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 May 2018, 11:23, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
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:
77% (01:45) correct
23%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 131
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.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
18 May 2015, 09:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
inboxsaukar
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
ArjunJag1328
Joined: 24 Dec 2017
Last visit: 12 Jan 2025
Posts: 138
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 48
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Real Estate
Schools: Johnson '21
19 Sep 2018, 02:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
