here is the Q guys, please help me with it.
Critical Reasoning
When the state of Tennessee passed a law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in its public schools, leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) persuaded John T. Scopes, a teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, to teach evolution in his classroom in order to test the law in court. However, because Scopes did not break the law on his own initiative, he should never have been brought to trial.
1. Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion of the passage above?
(A) Those who commit crimes at the suggestion of others should not be held responsible for their actions.
(B) Both Scopes and the ACLU leaders should have been tried for breaking the law.
(C) The ACLU leaders, rather than Scopes, should have been brought to trial.
(D) Groups like the ACLU should not encourage criminal activities as a means of testing laws.
(E) Tennessee did not have the right to make the teaching of evolution a crime.
the answer after the discussion.. thanks
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
ACLU Q, Petersons
This topic has expert replies
-
RadiumBall
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
- Thanked: 5 times
-
frank1
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:1 members
ramroom wrote:here is the Q guys, please help me with it.
Well it should be categoried as one of clear answer questions.
You should identify conclusion and evidence
conclusion:s should not procecuted as he didnt break law rather he was made to do so by others
evidence:s did something evoked by somebody else
what should be assumption?
prephase
if conclusion was to be true,people who commit crime evoked by others should not be held guity
that is what A says...
I said it may not be that difficult because all other options are bad...
Some of ways CR is made difficult
Too complicated ....linked logic in question(takes lots of time to understand)
too close answers ....this is right but this is not wrong either....
Traps you .....what you understand is just opposite....
Critical Reasoning
When the state of Tennessee passed a law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in its public schools, leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) persuaded John T. Scopes, a teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, to teach evolution in his classroom in order to test the law in court. However, because Scopes did not break the law on his own initiative, he should never have been brought to trial.
1. Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion of the passage above?
(A) Those who commit crimes at the suggestion of others should not be held responsible for their actions.
Correct.Negate it.....does conclusion hold ....NO
(B) Both Scopes and the ACLU leaders should have been tried for breaking the law.
True but not relevant....OPPOSITE....conclusion says S should not be procecuted it says he should be
(C) The ACLU leaders, rather than Scopes, should have been brought to trial.
Irrevant......the question is not about ACLU but about Scopes
(D) Groups like the ACLU should not encourage criminal activities as a means of testing laws.
This question doesnt care ...and no effect here
(E) Tennessee did not have the right to make the teaching of evolution a crime.
May be....in real world....but it doesnt make any difference here.....too broad...distortion
the answer after the discussion.. thanks
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.
-
fitzgerald23
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
Lets break this down to its important parts:
1. The ACLU convinced Scopes to break the law
2. Scopes was brought to trial (implied in the passage)
3. Because of number 1 Scopes should never have been brought to trial
A) This is correct. The author explicitly states that Scopes never should be brought to trial (#3) because someone else told him to break the law (#1). Even though he commited the crime he should not be responsible
B) Incorrect. The conclusion (#3)states that Scopes should not go to trial, this states the opposite.
C) Incorrect. This is the trick answer. While the author does imply that the ACLU should be brought to trial the conclusion is simply that Scopes should not have been brought to trial (#3).
D) Incorrect. Completely out of scope. The author is only concerned with Scopes, not the way the ACLU operates
E) Incorrect. The author never states anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the Tennessee law.
1. The ACLU convinced Scopes to break the law
2. Scopes was brought to trial (implied in the passage)
3. Because of number 1 Scopes should never have been brought to trial
A) This is correct. The author explicitly states that Scopes never should be brought to trial (#3) because someone else told him to break the law (#1). Even though he commited the crime he should not be responsible
B) Incorrect. The conclusion (#3)states that Scopes should not go to trial, this states the opposite.
C) Incorrect. This is the trick answer. While the author does imply that the ACLU should be brought to trial the conclusion is simply that Scopes should not have been brought to trial (#3).
D) Incorrect. Completely out of scope. The author is only concerned with Scopes, not the way the ACLU operates
E) Incorrect. The author never states anything about agreeing or disagreeing with the Tennessee law.
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
I received a pm asking me to have a look at this one.
Let me say fitzgerald23 has it right on the money. Very nice explanation.
So what do we take from this as a lesson?
Perhaps the most important lesson is to focus specifically on the conclusion that is stated in the argument. As fitzgerald23 states, the conclusion is only about Scopes and not about the ACLU. A focus on the exact conclusion will often help you to eliminate the most dangerous distraction choice.
One mistake that many students make is obsessing about each word in a critical reasoning stimulus right from the start. Remember, on your first read through of a stimulus you are really only responsible for identifying the conclusion (or if you prefer I will say the "main conclusion.") Once you have identified the main conclusion you can the reconstruct the argument by asking "what is the evidence?" You will find that much of the stimulus is really just background information. Only one premise will usually be important. And most important is the conclusion. And each word of that is important.
Let's look at this question. The first sentence is background information. No need to obsess about each word. Just understand that there is a law against teaching evolution and Scopes was persuaded to teach it. It is OKAY to paraphrase background information like this.
The important premise is "because Scopes did not break the law on his own initiative" this is the evidence that is supposed to lead to the conclusion, which is "he should never have been brought to trial." Focus on these last two statements, especially the conclusion and just have the background knowledge in the back of your mind.
Let me say fitzgerald23 has it right on the money. Very nice explanation.
So what do we take from this as a lesson?
Perhaps the most important lesson is to focus specifically on the conclusion that is stated in the argument. As fitzgerald23 states, the conclusion is only about Scopes and not about the ACLU. A focus on the exact conclusion will often help you to eliminate the most dangerous distraction choice.
One mistake that many students make is obsessing about each word in a critical reasoning stimulus right from the start. Remember, on your first read through of a stimulus you are really only responsible for identifying the conclusion (or if you prefer I will say the "main conclusion.") Once you have identified the main conclusion you can the reconstruct the argument by asking "what is the evidence?" You will find that much of the stimulus is really just background information. Only one premise will usually be important. And most important is the conclusion. And each word of that is important.
Let's look at this question. The first sentence is background information. No need to obsess about each word. Just understand that there is a law against teaching evolution and Scopes was persuaded to teach it. It is OKAY to paraphrase background information like this.
The important premise is "because Scopes did not break the law on his own initiative" this is the evidence that is supposed to lead to the conclusion, which is "he should never have been brought to trial." Focus on these last two statements, especially the conclusion and just have the background knowledge in the back of your mind.
