The president’s nominees to federal circuit

[Aragorn]

Structure issue here

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.






MGMAT answer..
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
(C) CORRECT. The author does accept the first statement as true, and the second statement is indeed given in support of the conclusion.

I think A
Because of two words...which I have underlined above
1st statement is a generalization. If one doesn't know that consevatism = lobby with industry, one sees that 1st sentence is a statement, 2nd is a opposition 'but' followed by a continuation of opposition 'further'
Gmat doesn't need the knowledge of subjects I believe. As per structure, conservatism is opposite of being lobbyist.

Any comments from staff?

Thanks

[Vijit Jain]

The author accepts that the nominees may be conservative because their opinions on red-button issues seem to suggest so. But he contends that the more important correlation between the nominees is the fact that they seem to have ties with industry on an unprecedented level. The second statement is intended to be proof (Evidence) for this conclusion.

[RonPurewal]

2 problems with choice (a): the first part, and the second part.

one:
the first boldface says:
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues
this is a statement that is clearly accepted by the author of the passage: the nominees have, unquestionably, been JUDGED conservative.
the author takes issue with the idea that the judges actually ARE conservative - but that's not what this statement says.

two:
the second part of choice (a) implies that the second boldface IS the conclusion ('attack') of the passage.
however, the conclusion of the passage is found here:
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 boldface is merely support for this conclusion, meaning that choice (c) is more accurate on this issue as well.

[Guest]

ROn, Why is the first part a phenomena? Shouldnt it be an opinion.

[RonPurewal]

ROn, Why is the first part a phenomena? Shouldnt it be an opinion.

remember to read very literally.

the nominees' having been judged conservative can be regarded a "phenomenon"; the actual judgment itself is an opinion. so you may argue that it can go both ways, but the phenomenon angle is definitely legitimate.

analogy:
my friend alan is a jerk --> opinion
girls always say my friend alan is a jerk --> phenomenon

[shwetha_shyam]

Isn't the first boldface a generalization that the author is trying to provide evidence against - so the first part of A) is correct? only the second part is wrong.

No?

[tim]

No. The author is not trying to make any claim about whether these nominees have been judged conservative. The author is only offering that as a fact..

[parthian7]

2 problems with choice (a): the first part, and the second part.

one:
the first boldface says:
The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues
this is a statement that is clearly accepted by the author of the passage: the nominees have, unquestionably, been JUDGED conservative.
the author takes issue with the idea that the judges actually ARE conservative - but that's not what this statement says.

two:
the second part of choice (a) implies that the second boldface IS the conclusion ('attack') of the passage.
however, the conclusion of the passage is found here:
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 boldface is merely support for this conclusion, meaning that choice (c) is more accurate on this issue as well.

Hi Ron,

I have two questions:

1. Would you please verify if my approach to spot the conclusion below is correct?

I couldn’t use any of the primary ways to find the conclusion. Hence I’m resorting to the "alternate way" as referred to in the Manhattan book:

a. Identify all claims:
1. 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.

2. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same
interests.

3. Further, the nominees with industry ties were
overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as
traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these
industries.

I guess since 2 is clearly an evidence for either of the first
2 claims, we can drop it.

b. Applying the therefore test:
1 --> 2 ?
Or
2 --> 1 ?

I guess neither really. However, 1 is a more general statement so it qualifies better for the conclusion. Especially 2 seems to be referring to a subset of people in 1 and claiming something only about them.


2. I was wondering what is your rationale for believing that the author accepts the first boldfaced statement. I’m not too clear as to whether she agrees with that statement or not. If anything, I’m more inclined to think that she doesn’t quite..because of her claim right after, which starts with "But"..
The claim seems to suggest that because of their "close ties to corporate and economic interests" she doesn’t quite agree with their having been judged conservative.

Please advice.

Thanks a lot

[tim]

for your first point, i'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. you set up a list of 1, 2, and 3, proceed to get rid of 2, and then somehow try to compare 1 to the 2 you have already gotten rid of. please clean up your argument here so we can at least tell what you have in mind..

as for our rationale for why the first statement is taken as a fact, just learn that those are the rules on the GMAT. in a CR argument, when they give you a piece of information in the past tense that looks like something you could check by looking it up, that's a fact according to the GMAT..

[danrenset]

Hi, excuse me for the unorthodox question but here goes :

I got the question right but I'm not entirely sure I understand the exact meaning of the passage. It's full of political lingo and I'm not sure what the main message is. Can someone please summarize this passage to me in plain English??


More specifically, I don't understand the underlying correlation between

"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. "

and

"The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues."




I would really appreciate it.
Thank you!

[jnelson0612]

Hi danrenset,
Sure!

Here's the argument:
"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."

A simpler take:
The president's nominees are thought to have conservative orientations because of their past court opinions.
However, it's more striking that they have such close ties to corporate interests.
What's really weird is that they were appointed to circuit courts that hear lots of cases regarding these interests. (unstated: judges should be impartial)
Observers find this an unprecedented level of involvement for court nominees.

An even simpler take:
People are focusing on one aspect of the judges (that they are conservative).
What is even more interesting/striking/unusual about them is another aspect (their close ties to industry).
Here is some evidence of their ties to industry: blah blah blah.
This level of involvement has never been seen before.

Does this help a little bit? :-)

[HemantR606]

as for our rationale for why the first statement is taken as a fact, just learn that those are the rules on the GMAT. in a CR argument, when they give you a piece of information in the past tense that looks like something you could check by looking it up, that's a fact according to the GMAT..

Tim,
I totally agree with your point that the first sentence must be accepted a fact. But, by using the word 'but' next to this fact, isn't the author challenging this fact? Doesn't the word 'further' in the bold face support indicate support to this challenge?

For example, consider the following sentence
"Dr. A is considered the sole inventor of medicine X. But Dr. B published the effect of medicine X's components a decade earlier. Further, ABC research laboratory started trials on similar medicine seven years before the release of medicine X"

In this argument, the first sentence is definitely a fact. But isn't the author challenging it?

If not, in the original question, how can one who does not have the subject knowledge (know the relation between being conservative, lobbying and relationship with companies) analyze the argument? Please advice.

Thanks.

[tim]

"but" does not indicate that the speaker is about to say a fact is wrong. The intent may be to clarify or to forestall an erroneous implication that might otherwise be inferred from that fact. Let's consider your example:

"Dr. A is considered the sole inventor of medicine X. But Dr. B published the effect of medicine X's components a decade earlier. Further, ABC research laboratory started trials on similar medicine seven years before the release of medicine X"

The fact that Dr. B published a decade earlier might be proof that Dr. A *wasn't* the sole inventor. However, it does NOT negate the fact that Dr. A is *considered* the sole inventor.

[SanjayB764]

"but" does not indicate that the speaker is about to say a fact is wrong. The intent may be to clarify or to forestall an erroneous implication that might otherwise be inferred from that fact. Let's consider your example:

"Dr. A is considered the sole inventor of medicine X. But Dr. B published the effect of medicine X's components a decade earlier. Further, ABC research laboratory started trials on similar medicine seven years before the release of medicine X"

The fact that Dr. B published a decade earlier might be proof that Dr. A *wasn't* the sole inventor. However, it does NOT negate the fact that Dr. A is *considered* the sole inventor.

Hi, For the above statement -

When the answer choice says that the second statement (But Dr B published proof....) attacks the generalisation in the first statement, does't it mean that the second statement challenges the fact that Dr A was not the sole inventor and not the fact that Dr is 'considered' the sole inventor?"

[SpellB946]

I made the same mistake of going by structure, assuming BUT will lead to a difference in stance. Frankly, I still cannot see how I could have avoided this mistake, understanding little of the background of the question.
"The famous tower of Pisa is considered to be leaning. But a visit to the monument reveals that it is very prominently white in colour."
Is this even an argument?