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?
The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.


What is the conclusion for this? Also please post your explanations:)

kiranlegend wrote:(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?
The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.


What is the conclusion for this? Also please post your explanations:)

i cant see any bold portions

The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.

IMO C

A) It doesn't seems as a generalization.
B) Second is not conclusion but a support of conclusion.
C) Correct
D) Second is not supporting His position for the first but is introducing a
clause
E) There is no exception to any rule.

Whts the OA.. and please correct me if im wrong

OA, infact, is C

can you please tell what is the conclusion?

imo, the conclusion is that nominees are more notable for ties to focus groups than their conservatism.

bold face 1 neither weakens nor strengthens; the author accepts this as true.

bold face 2 is in support of the authors conclusion.

make sure to identify the conclusion first, then decide how the bold face statements relate to the conclusion.

c

In my opinion C is the most logical one.