Boldface question

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

Boldface question

by ketkoag » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:46 am
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?

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

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

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

d. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.

e. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.

OA after few posts..
Last edited by ketkoag on Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:36 am
Thanked: 1 times

by graghukalyan » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:27 am
a. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.

b. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The author doesnt acknowledge anything here.The second one is not a conclusion.Looks more like one more stem. Filter Out

c. The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
The author doesnt accept anything here.The second one infact contradicts the first bold to a certain extent.So not an evidence Filter OUt

d. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.

e. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.
There is no exception mentioned. Filter out

This leaves out A & D. In D, IMHO, the pattern present doesnt support the position.

Leaves out A.

What is the OA ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:730

by ranell » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:16 am
The answer is A. The explanation is given below

a. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack. – CORRECT as in the argument the author states that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests and it follows that the criterion for nominees’ judgment on hot-button issues in incomplete or invalid

b. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment. – WRONG as the second BF is not a conclusion, rather it is additional information to the criteria on which The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts can be judged.

c. The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion. – WRONG as the author doesn’t accept the first BF as true, rather he states some reasons below why the judgment on hot-button issues for nominees to federal circuit courts is not primary; the author cites that nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests and this info refutes the first BF

d. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position. – WRONG as the first BF is not the author’s position, rather it is a general statement the author proves to be incomplete and not primary to judge The president’s nominees

e. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception. – WRONG as the first BF is not an exception to a rule, rather it is a general statement the author proves to be incomplete and not primary to judge The president’s nominees; the second BF is not the reasoning behind the first BF

Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:30 am
I also selected A when i attempted this question.. but this is from manhattan and the OA given is C.
I don't know how it is C.. there is no OE though..

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Sao Paulo-Brazil
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:660

by shibal » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:12 am
Guys IMO is C....
I got it by the second boldface part... The phrase has further before, so after further we hace a clause that supports a determine statement...... Also the first boldface states a fact, but the following sentence has a but, which indicates that there is something contrary to it.

Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:41 pm
shibal wrote:Guys IMO is C....
I got it by the second boldface part... The phrase has further before, so after further we hace a clause that supports a determine statement...... Also the first boldface states a fact, but the following sentence has a but, which indicates that there is something contrary to it.
Exactly, if there is a but after first statement then how C could be the answer.. it says that first boldface is the statement that author supports, but author does not support it, right.. so it should be A..
Please lemme know which statement is premise and which is conclusion..
IMO second statement is conclusion..

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:47 pm
This is tricky. I chose A, but the answer in retrospect makes sense. C doesn't state that the author agrees with the statement, but agrees with the phenomenon.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am
Thanked: 8 times

by cata1yst » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:22 am
I chose C solely based on the word "further" before the second bold phrase. This to me set of more supporting evidence and C was the only choice that contained more evidence in the second option.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:30 am
It doesn't actually say that the author agrees with the phenomenon - it just says that he accepts this as true. I accept that there are some people who think dogs make better pets than cats... but I don't agree. :)

The nominees have been judged conservative based on the stands that they take on certain issues. So people have concluded, based on what the nominees say or do, that they are generally conservative (implication: perhaps based on some innate characteristic or a result of some code of morals). (The author doesn't dispute that others think this.)

BUT (the author says), the nominees are actually more notable for their financial / comapany ties. (eg, who cares that they're "generally conservative," as others have said? We should care about the fact that they have a lot of financial / company ties - that's the more important thing to notice here! That doesn't change the fact that they've exhibited generally conservative behavior.)

Some of them were paid by those companies.

Further, those with company ties were nominated to courts that tended to hear cases about those industries.

Independent people notice the "extensive" corporate ties of these nominees (see, it's not just me, the author, who notices this!). :)

Overall implication: sure, they're conservative, but the interesting thing isn't THAT they're conservative. The interesting thing is WHY they're conservative.

If you accept the above, then you can see how the first half of A doesn't work: the author isn't actually attacking the idea that they're conservative. Rather, he's trying to explain why, and that's where his opinions come in.

As for the "but" used in the argument, try this:

The kids have been judged conservative ice cream eaters because they almost always choose vanilla. But a review of their financial disclosure forms reveals that the kids are more notable for their close ties to Zoom ice cream company. Some of these kids have actually been paid by Zoom to eat their ice cream, and Zoom only makes vanilla.

So the kids ARE technically conservative ice cream eaters, because they are eating mostly vanilla. The implication in the first sentence is that there is some native or innate reason why the kids are conservative ice cream eaters, so we don't really need to examine why. But, the author claims, the reason why is notable: it's not because of some moral principle that causes them to prefer conservative vanilla. It's because they're biased. :)
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:31 pm
I believe the correct answer should be C