The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged

Question

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues . But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further,  the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries . Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface pay which of the following roles?
 
(A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
 
(B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
 
(C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
 
(D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
 
(E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception

ChrisLele · Accepted Answer

I'd be glad to help :-D

The author doesn’t actually disagree with the first bold-faced statement. If you read the second sentence it says “a more notable finding.” Thus the author agrees with the first statement (“ …acknowledge as true.. .”), but believes that there is an even more interesting/titillating phenomenon: that the recently appointed judges have strong ties to certain industries, i.e. energy and mining. He backs up this assertion in the second bold-faced sentence: those judges with industry ties were far more likely to be appointed to courts in which their respective industries had special interests (smell like corruption to me!). This last part back ups the argument’s conclusion that a notable finding amongst the current crop of judges is their industry ties. And thus, corresponds to “… evidence in support of the author’s conclusion. ” This is the exact wording from (C), which I've reproduced below: C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion. Hope that helped!

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion of the argument is that the nominees "are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests" than for their positions on controversial issues. The first boldfaced statement is a recognition of the fact that the president's nominees have been branded conservative. The second boldfaced statement offers information in support of the assertion that the nominees are more notable for their corporate ties. So we need to find a choice that describes both statements accurately.

(A) The author does not seek to attack the assertion made in the first statement.

(B) The author does acknowledge the first statement as true. However, the second statement is not the conclusion.

(C) CORRECT.  The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

(D) The first statement is not the author's "position" (i.e., conclusion).

(E) The first statement is not an exception to a rule, making the description of the second statement false as well.

amit2k9 · Answer

Premises -

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.
Thank you

hurdle7 · Answer

here's the manhattan's explanation: but I'm not quite why they believe author agrees with the first bold. Her next sentence starts with "But" and seems to suggest that due to their close ties with corporate and economic interests, she doesn't think that having been judged conservative was accurate.

F1Tyro · Answer

The BF1 states "The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been  judged conservative  for their stands on hot-button issues"
It is followed by author's statement :  But  a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the  nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests

I concluded with option A because this is the closest choice where author opposes the stated passage. In BF2, he continues to indicate that these judges are appointed in the courts which are very critical.
Also in the BF2 : Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries

Vetrik · Answer

Yes, I too have the same question in mind....who do manhattan and others who have replied in the forum say that the first bold statement was accepted by the author as true when the argument is trying is oppose the position that the nominees are conservative.

Going by the explanations given, so does 'being conservative on hot-button issues' mean that these nominees are lobbyists for industries and do not raise their voice for the issues that will affect these industries and conservatively support these industries rather than fighting for the issues created by these industries ?? In that case, what is the use of the word 'but' as hurdle7 rightly points out ??

pkm9995 · Answer

need some clarity on this. first sentence says nominees are conservative and second sentence starts with a "but". Sounds like a contrast.
for example " it was told that Jim was the topper in his class.But his grades were rather low". So we have all the reason to believe that Jim is not actually the topper.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

pkm9995109794 , check out ChrisLele's explanation above. The first statement isn't actually cited as support for the argument. The author is basically saying "Hey, it's true that these nominees are conservative. But I want to point out something else:  they are more notable for their corporate ties.  Here's some evidence of that." So the conclusion (bolded above) is followed by premises. The first statement is something that the author thinks is true, but that they don't find as interesting.

Here's another example:

True, Candidate X is inexperienced. But what's more important is that his policies are dangerous. If enacted, they would lead to unprecedented levels of poverty and environmental degradation.

The author agrees with the first sentence, but doesn't think it's as important the impact of Candidate X's policy. The second and third sentences produce the actual conclusion and premise.

carlosvisbal88 · Answer

To attack this type of questions is always better to look first for the conclusion, if any, and then try to identify, after reading the whole argument, the BF parts.

Conclusion: Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

The phrase mentioned before, is the conclusion of the argument. The author acknowledge the first sentence as true, but thinks that there is something more going on.

Now, in order to back its conclusion, the author should mention some premises or evidence of the claim he tries to make.

Premises: The nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries.
Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In both premises above, the author is trying to support his view that there is something more going on by showing that nominees are somehow backing the industries and litigation over those are battlegrounds because of the biases that the nominees have over those specific industries. Moreover, the author states that independent observers believe that the corporate involvement is unprecedented as a way to supports its claim.

BF1. Background. 
BF2. Support of author conclusion = Premise.

Now let's check answer choices and try to match them with BF1 and BF2. Work from wrong to right:

A. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
I do understand that the first part of the answer may seem right, but the reality is that the author does not aim to attack. It just providing some context and then claiming that there is something more going on. The second part, is not an attack but a support of the author's claim.

B. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The first seems like our classification of BF1. Part 2 of the answer is wrong, the BF2 is a PREMISE not a CONCLUSION.

(C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
Both part of the answer are align with our classification of the bold faces.

(D) The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
The first is not the author position, is an acknowledge of the situation, but you can say that this statement is close enough, so let's see the second part. The second part is wrong. It is not a support of that position, but a support of the conclusion.

(E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception
First part: Wrong. It is not an exception rule, is actually what is going on. Second Part: Wrong. As mentioned before is a premise of the author's conclusion.

41396302717 · Answer

Hello! How can the first be a phenomenon. I discarded the choice only beacuse of the word phenomenon. Please clarify. Thank you in advance

Posted from my mobile device

MBAB123 · Answer

Hey  41396302717 , would love to know why you thought it couldn't be a phenomenon. Is it due to the fact when we use the word  phenomenon , you expect to hear something scientific? Probably global warming? It can happen as that is generally the context in which phenomenon is used, but the english language is super flexible and the word can be used for other things as well!

Definition of phenomenon as per google -  a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.  OR  a remarkable person, thing, or event.

Shivam2027 · Answer

Note :- bud does not always means contradiction , have to read carefully

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards