Judgements

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:27 pm

Judgements

by nadib002 » Wed May 19, 2010 9:33 pm
Candidate: I am concerned that few judges who arbitrate cases involving high-tech companies have any relevant background; indeed, not one federal judge has a degree or any experience in computer technology. Until our judges are better able to demonstrate an understanding of the technology involved in these cases, we should view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the candidate's argument?

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system.

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise.

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government.

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Wed May 19, 2010 9:41 pm
nadib002 wrote:Candidate: I am concerned that few judges who arbitrate cases involving high-tech companies have any relevant background; indeed, not one federal judge has a degree or any experience in computer technology. Until our judges are better able to demonstrate an understanding of the technology involved in these cases, we should view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the candidate's argument?

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system.

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise.

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government.

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.
IMO it's A. Pls post OA.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by ballubalraj » Thu May 20, 2010 12:59 am
Argument: The juduges handling cases related high-tech companies do not have technical knowledge, which they should have (conclusion says that).
Conclusion: Until judges know the technology involved in these cases, the decisions should be veiwed as skeptical.

We need to find out the reason which will weaken the argument, i.e., find out a reason which tells that technical knowledge is not required for the judges handling these cases.

A. Frankly, I did not understand this option completely but inferred that this option gives some reasoning as why technical knowledge is NOT required for judges handling cases ralated to high-tech companies. Seems OK.

B. States the reasons probably why it is difficult to find judges with technical knowledge, but does not give any clue why judges do not require tech knowledge.
C. Similar to B, states the reason for not finding judges with technical knowledge.
D. Mentions the opportunities constraints as why a technical person can not become a judge.
E. Mentions the reason why technical expers would not want to become a judge.

Clearly, option A stands out from the remaining options. The other options (B thru E) are just talking about the reasons for non-availability of judges with technical backgroud. Only option A provides reason why the judges do not need to be have technical background.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:18 am
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:1 members

by indiantiger » Thu May 20, 2010 3:16 pm
First step find the conclusion: view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system. [ technology is not limited to comp science, too narrow and faulty logic]

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise. [ the judges need understanding]

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government. [ no direct correlation]

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.[ assumption that everyone works for money and prestige]

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:27 pm

by nadib002 » Thu May 20, 2010 8:03 pm
THE OA is "A"

Thank you all