Critical Reasoning

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.

Doubt:I cannot not solve this type of question within the allocated 2 min time.How to handle such questions ? Can someone explain the strategy for these type of questions. You can explain using this example to make things more clear.

OA[spoiler]:C[/spoiler]

IMO
c

Clearly first sentence is a phenomenon which author accepts is true

Author's conclusion of the passage is :

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

The second bold-face provides support for the conclusion mentioned....

........................
If you find the post helpful--------------->Press Thanks

If you put challenging to each question, the word will loose its challenge.

Search posts from experts on this forum and see if it helps. You can look David's posts in particular. Find the one whose explanation you get better.

I can explain this type of question, but if you hunt a little, it will be worth your efforts.One thing I can tel you, once you get bold face method set, you will wish that you get such questions.However, doing such questions in 2 minutes , it takes a bit longer for difficult questions.

@ GMATMadeEasy can you point to any such post of David or others . I tried searching a couple but couldnt get any thing meaningful.

To your question , i put challeging question tag only against questions which are of that category and NOT against every question.

There you go:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-q ... 76369.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-q ... 65499.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-e ... 65279.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/how-to-tackl ... 67929.html

Focus for a while what he has written and then do question by yourself. And see if it helps.

How I do :

1. I read whole argument to get full understanding especially of main conclusion
2. I look quickly two bold face and classify as premise or sub-conclusoin or conclusion.
3. I see whether they are in favor of main point or against and see relation between them - supporting each ohter /contracting each other

Treat once sentence at a time and eliminate
then take anoher one and eliminate

Practie with that in mind and you might develop your own better approach.

MOST Important - LOCK the structure whether each sentence is premise or concluson or sub-conclusion.Share your thoughts once youlearn it and apply to some questions.