BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

law

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:30 am
Thanked: 5 times

law

by blaster » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:30 am
A law that is not consistently enforced does not serve its purpose. Law without
enforcement is not law, it is merely stature-a promise of law. To institute real law is
not merely to declare that such and such behaviour is forbidden, it is also to punish
those who violate that edict. Furthermore, those who enforce law must punish
without favour for their friends or malice for their enemies. To punish only those
own dislike while forgiving others is not to enforce law but to engage in the
arbitrary and unjust exercise of power.

The main point of the passage is that instituting real law consists in
(A) the exercise of power
(B) authorizing the enforcement of punishments
(C) the unbiased punishment of prohibited behaviour
(D) understanding the purpose of law
(E) clearly defining unacceptable behaviour


please, explain your choice.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:10 pm
IMO: C

P1: to institute real law --> declare forbidden behavior and punish the prohibited behavior.
P2: punishment should be unbiased.

A) -> Exercise of power ( I think "too big to conclude").
B) --> Its not only authorizing the enforcement of punishment but also an unbiased punishment.
C) CORRECT.
D) purpose of LAW ( First line talks about serving the purpose, but nothing related to understanding the purpose) ( Also I think its "too big to conclude")
E) There is nothing has been mentioned about characteristics of unacceptable behavior.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: pune
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:3 members

by amit2k9 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:47 am
choice is between C and D.

since the statement says instituting law,hence the statement can be completed only by
C,which mentions about how to administer law.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:38 pm
IMO: C. What is the OA?

Thanks.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:46 pm

by rupertert » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:39 pm
My question involves malpractice by a lawyer in the state of: Colorado

I retained the services of a well-established lawyer in 2010 for my divorce who, in hindsight, had a definite drinking problem. During the time I initially retained him, he seemed competent, but after several missed appointments, errant behavior and a revolving door of paralegals (some of which had no legal experience), I terminated his services after he blew through my retainer fees. During the 10 months I had him on retainer, I had to file my own motions and paperwork, write all my own correspondence with the opposing counsel, and generally handle all of my own case. He was argumentative, his hands shook, and would not return phone calls.

Shortly after I terminated his services I learned that this lawyer went on "TDIS" or temporary disability. The State Bar returned all my files to me. The lawyer's house went into foreclosure. My questions are a) do I have a case for some form of legal malpractice (knowing that damages in a divorce representation are vague at best) and b) would it be worth it to pursue, given the likely documented status of this lawyer's incapacity to perform law? Thanks for your insight.

https://www.thewilliamsonfirm.com/
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1