I would go with E.
IMO Basically the argument is saying that famous personalities get away with community service because of their fame and publicity when compared to non celebrities who have done similar crime.
From bothe the statemensts together the author is trying to convey that the law must be equal for all and no leniency based on certain considerations must be allowed.
LSAT CR
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
gmat740
- MBA Student
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
- Location: Paris, France
- Thanked: 71 times
- Followed by:17 members
- GMAT Score:710
Kaplan explaination for E
(E) Leniency is a new and ambiguous term, which is a good reason to kill this choice right
off the bat. For all we know, the principle of equality before the law is compatible with
leniency; nothing forbids this, so (E) isn’t the conclusion we seek
(E) Leniency is a new and ambiguous term, which is a good reason to kill this choice right
off the bat. For all we know, the principle of equality before the law is compatible with
leniency; nothing forbids this, so (E) isn’t the conclusion we seek
-
cramya
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
- Thanked: 331 times
- Followed by:11 members
Good question.
I jumped in to the conclusion that many in D is extreme but thinking about it more many types could correlate to many cases so D could be right in that respect.
Would u be kind enough to post Kaplan's explanation or a paraphrase for D?
I jumped in to the conclusion that many in D is extreme but thinking about it more many types could correlate to many cases so D could be right in that respect.
Would u be kind enough to post Kaplan's explanation or a paraphrase for D?
-
gmat740
- MBA Student
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
- Location: Paris, France
- Thanked: 71 times
- Followed by:17 members
- GMAT Score:710
Kaplan Explaination:
I am not able to understand how to kick out C
When we need to infer a conclusion from the stimulus, it’s best to think about where the
argument is leading. It pays to be famous: According to the first sentence, celebrities
convicted of crimes are increasingly being sentenced to community service, whereas
unknown convicts almost always get locked up for the same crimes. Doesn’t sound very
fair, does it? Next, we find out that the principle of equality before the law does not permit
celebrity status to affect the sentencing of criminals. This principle seems to directly
conflict with the example in the first sentence. If, in fact, celebrities are getting off easier
because of their celebrity status, then some judges out there aren’t paying much attention
to the principle of equality before the law. That’s the one solid conclusion that’s inferable
from the passage. Some of the punishments described in the first sentence conflict with the
principle described in the second, and it seems as though the author stopped just short of
presenting the conclusion contained in choice (D).
I am not able to understand how to kick out C
-
cramya
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
- Thanked: 331 times
- Followed by:11 members
I think C says properly being overridden and the argument speaks against this by saying it is not so. reducing the punsihment to acommunity service on the grounds of publicity or one being famous is not a principle.
I was thinking Kaplan might give more explanation on the word MANY i.e many cases in choice D to many types of crimes in the argument.
For example there could be many types of cases but only 100 of them involving celebrities whereas there could one type of case but 1000 of them involving non celebrities.
I think Stuart could help us with this if he happens to see this post.
Regards,
CR
I was thinking Kaplan might give more explanation on the word MANY i.e many cases in choice D to many types of crimes in the argument.
For example there could be many types of cases but only 100 of them involving celebrities whereas there could one type of case but 1000 of them involving non celebrities.
I think Stuart could help us with this if he happens to see this post.
Regards,
CR
-
anshulseth
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:2 members
The word "properly be overridden" rules out C.
As it can't properly be overridden, but is improperly overridden in celebrity cases.
In D, "many cases" just implies its rampant.
As it can't properly be overridden, but is improperly overridden in celebrity cases.
In D, "many cases" just implies its rampant.
Asset
