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

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.

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.

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

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?

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..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

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

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..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor