700-800 level bold face question from MGMAT

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members
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?

The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.

The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author's conclusion based on that acknowledgment.

The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author's conclusion.

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 an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.

a number of times i am getting wrong answers for bold face ; can sme one provide a step by step appraoch for tackling such issues
OA will follow soon
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:46 pm
Thanked: 8 times
GMAT Score:690

by pkw209 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:11 pm
IMO A.

Look for keywords that signal the author's position, conclusion, tone and premise. That should help you identify them, which will provide structure and allow you to answer the question.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:20 pm
IMO A

Really pay attention to the working verbs in each answer choice and determine if each sentence actually does that action. For example

B- The working verb is "acknowledges as true"... you know this is wrong based on the second bolded part. Eliminate B

C- the working verb is "accepts" as true. This is false because the second bolded part contradicts it. Eliminate C

D- the first part doesn't really comply with this system of attack, analyze the second part of the answer choice. " presented" in support of that position is false, because it contradicts the original bolded statement. Eliminate D

E- This is the hardest one to eliminate. With this one you have to really have a handle on the meaning in order to eliminate this one.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:42 pm
I think the answer should be C.

Analyzing the Question,

P1. The president's nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues.
P2. But review --> close to industries.
P3. some of them are paid lobbyists.
P4. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries.
P5. Independent observers --> Corporate involvement among so many nominees is unprecedented.

Now try to find the author's stand,

P1- I think this is a part of the author's stand. I think the author is definitely not trying to counter this premise rather he takes this as true.

From P1 follows P2 that though they have been judged conservative by some means, review puts them on the side of the industry.
P3,P4,P5 are but a continuation of this stand.


Now let us have a look at the options,
A- Author never tries to attack or counter the first one.
B- reserve this for further analysis
C- reserve this for further analysis
D- the first does not state the author's position, but P2 states that.
E- there is not rule in the argument so eliminate this.

Now between B and C,
I think I will go with C, because in B the second one is referred to as conclusion which is definitely not the case.

Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:11 pm
IMO A

please quote the OA thephoenix

Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:12 pm
i am confused between A aand C
:-S

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:46 pm
Thanked: 8 times
GMAT Score:690

by pkw209 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:51 pm
Official answer phoenix?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:51 pm
sorrry guys for delay, here is the OA And OE
OA C
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.