Verdicts in civil suits launched against major corporations can be ext

Question

Verdicts in civil suits launched against major corporations can be extremely large. These verdicts, however, should be placed in proper context. Verdicts in civil suits against individuals can be much larger when measured in terms of the ability of the defendant to pay the said sum. Our justice system should render verdicts against corporations that are as large proportionally to the revenues of the corporation as some verdicts are proportionally to the income of individual defendants.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Insurance companies often fail to pay the sums dictated in verdicts reached against individual defendants.

(B) The extent to which the payment is expensive to the defendant should be a consideration in the determination of awards.

(C) Corporations are responsible for at least as many of the problems in our society as are individuals.

(D) No punishment is too large for the truly guilty.

(E) The justice system has always been effective in collecting large sums imposed on defendants.

bhima22 · Answer

Verdicts in civil suits launched against major corporations can be extremely large. These verdicts, however, should be placed in proper context. Verdicts in civil suits against individuals can be much larger when measured in terms of the ability of the defendant to pay the said sum. Our justice system should render verdicts against corporations that are as large proportionally to the revenues of the corporation as some verdicts are proportionally to the income of individual defendants.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Insurance companies often fail to pay the sums dictated in verdicts reached against individual defendants.

(B) The extent to which the payment is expensive to the defendant should be a consideration in the determination of awards.

(C) Corporations are responsible for at least as many of the problems in our society as are individuals.

(D) No punishment is too large for the truly guilty.

(E) The justice system has always been effective in collecting large sums imposed on defendants.

This is a tough one.

- Verdicts corporate while extremely large, might be placed in proper context
- Verdict individuals can be much larger when put into the context of the ability to pay the sum.

Conclusion - justice system should render verdicts against corporation to make the sum proportionally to the revenue of the corporation as to the income of individual.

I think we can remove CDE.

B - I was tempted to choose B. However, when reading closely. The arguments focuses to make the payment proportional.

Thus, my answers is A. If individual defendants are often covered by insurance companies. Therefore, the argument to increase the verdicts to corporations won't hold.

Taulark1 · Answer

(A) Insurance companies often fail to pay the sums dictated in verdicts reached against individual defendants. - Don't have to assume this, argument holds even if they fail always or they don't fail at all. (B) The extent to which the payment is expensive to the defendant should be a consideration in the determination of awards. - If we negate it , and the extent of expensiveness isn't a consideration anymore , then woaahhh, what if lets say for individual earning 1000$ , he has to pay 20% of the income which will be 200$. But for a corporation having revenue of 100 Million dollars , 20% is a looooottt of moneyyyy , maybe more than what would have been ,had the verdict been based on the company's ability to pay . in that case verdict shouldn't be based on the proportionally to the revenue. Hence our answer

(C) Corporations are responsible for at least as many of the problems in our society as are individuals. - uhm what if they are responsible for fewer problems ? still argument holds that we can charge verdict proportionally according to their revenue (D) No punishment is too large for the truly guilty. - Don't have to assume that no punishment is too large for the truly guilty (E) The justice system has always been effective in collecting large sums imposed on defendants - Even if it is 90-80% effective , it still is good isn't it ? :p , definitely not an assumption

summerbummer · Answer

KarishmaB   Other  Experts, please share your two cents on this one!

KarishmaB · Answer

The language of the question isn't the best so I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

Basically it means (I think) that verdict against individuals can be large in comparison to the individual's capacity to pay. Verdicts against corporations should also be large enough keeping in mind the corporation's ability to pay (Conclusion).
So the author is assuming that the extent to which the payment is expensive to the defendant should be a consideration in the determination of awards.
Hence answer (B)

NathanMasky · Answer

The argument's core idea is that verdicts against corporations should be proportionally as large (relative to revenue) as verdicts against individuals (relative to income). This implicitly assumes that the ability to pay should be a factor in determining the size of the award.

Let's look at why the correct answer is (B):

(B) The extent to which the payment is expensive to the defendant should be a consideration in the determination of awards. This is precisely the assumption the argument makes. It argues for proportional verdicts based on the defendant's financial capacity (revenue for corporations, income for individuals). The argument hinges on the idea that the "expense" of the payment relative to the defendant's resources is a key factor.

Why the other options are incorrect:

(A) Insurance companies often fail to pay the sums dictated in verdicts reached against individual defendants.

This is irrelevant to the core argument about proportional verdicts. Whether insurance pays or not doesn't affect the argument about the size of the verdict relative to the defendant's finances.

(C) Corporations are responsible for at least as many of the problems in our society as are individuals.

This discusses the relative culpability of corporations and individuals, which is not the central point of the argument. The argument focuses on the size of the award, not the reason for it.

(D) No punishment is too large for the truly guilty.

This is a general statement about punishment and guilt, not specifically about proportional verdicts tied to financial capacity. The argument doesn't address the concept of "guilt" directly.

(E) The justice system has always been effective in collecting large sums imposed on defendants.

The effectiveness of collecting the money is separate from the argument about how the amount is determined. The argument concerns the principle of proportional verdicts, not the practicality of enforcement.

Therefore, the correct answer is (B).

Verdicts in civil suits launched against major corporations can be ext

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

Verdicts in civil suits launched against major corporations can be ext

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