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.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Sep 2022, 01:30
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:
80% (01:59) correct
20%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 117
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases it agrees to decide. Honourable Court schedules and hears 240 hours of oral argument each year, and 178 hours of next year's term will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Surely, the Court cannot be asked to increase its already onerous 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 240 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 240 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.
08 Sep 2022, 03:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Federal Court is struggling to keep pace with the huge number of cases it agrees to decide. Honourable Court schedules and hears 240 hours of oral argument each year, and 178 hours of next year's term will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Surely, the Court cannot be asked to increase its already onerous 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?
Suggested solution to eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides each year -> allow the Court to decide many cases without hearing oral argument.
To increase the number of cases dramatically the oral arguments should consume majority share of the proceedings, if oral arguments doesn't take a lot of time then the solution won't be feasible.
A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case. - Correct
In line with our thinking
B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year. - incorrect
This talks only about the left over cases from last year. The courts can still avoid current year's cases.
C. Most authorities agree that 240 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year. - incorrect
This information doesn't provide details to evaluate the feasibility of the solution.
D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument. - incorrect
This states that the solution is plausible since there are instance where cases are decided without oral argument
E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved. - incorrect
It talks about the cost of the delays to the parties involved. This doesn.t help in arguing against the feasibility of the proposed solution.
Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the feasibility of the solution suggested?
Suggested solution to eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides each year -> allow the Court to decide many cases without hearing oral argument.
To increase the number of cases dramatically the oral arguments should consume majority share of the proceedings, if oral arguments doesn't take a lot of time then the solution won't be feasible.
A. The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small part of the total time it spends deciding a case. - Correct
In line with our thinking
B. The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any case left over from last year. - incorrect
This talks only about the left over cases from last year. The courts can still avoid current year's cases.
C. Most authorities agree that 240 hours of oral argument is the maximum number that the Court can handle per year. - incorrect
This information doesn't provide details to evaluate the feasibility of the solution.
D. Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without hearing oral argument. - incorrect
This states that the solution is plausible since there are instance where cases are decided without oral argument
E. In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be extremely expensive to the parties involved. - incorrect
It talks about the cost of the delays to the parties involved. This doesn.t help in arguing against the feasibility of the proposed solution.
Moderators:
