Discussion
Which of the following is the conclusion of the argument above?
*This question is included in Nova Press: Set A - Intro to GMAT Logic: Premises and Conclusions, question #9
| (A) | In time I began to recognize that all of these smaller complaints about rigidity, emotional suffocation, the tortured logic of the law were part of a more fundamental phenomenon in the law itself. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 04/25/2012 17:35
I don't understand, please explain
Posted: 05/17/2012 17:13
Why is answer B the conclusion of the argument?
Posted: 05/17/2012 17:32
The question asks us to find the main argument / conclusion of the passage. Here's how I think you should break up the passage:
INTRODUCTION: In time I began ...
MAIN ARGUMENT: Law is at war with ambiguity, with uncertainty.
FOR EXAMPLE: In the courtroom, ...
INTRODUCTION: In time I began ...
MAIN ARGUMENT: Law is at war with ambiguity, with uncertainty.
FOR EXAMPLE: In the courtroom, ...
Posted: 09/09/2012 03:54
Law is at war with ambiguity seems like an argument leading to a conclusion that there has to be a winner and a loser. I still don't understand how thats an obvious conclusion
Posted: 09/26/2013 05:18
I tend to agree with mohsen; the author declares his recognition of something; that Law is at war with ambiguity, that there will always be a winner/loser regardless of the balance of justice and that these are all supporting evidence of the conclusion that the rule of law will be declared.
Or (having written all that, I am now unsure of myself) the inevitable fact that the rule of law will be declared deives the conclusion that the law is indeed at war with ambiguity.
Hmmmm. you choose.
Or (having written all that, I am now unsure of myself) the inevitable fact that the rule of law will be declared deives the conclusion that the law is indeed at war with ambiguity.
Hmmmm. you choose.
Posted: 10/07/2013 16:33
"In the courtroom, the adversary system—plaintiff against defendant—guarantees that someone will always win, someone loses."
That is the complete phrase. It reads more like a specific example of the conclusion, that law is at war with ambiguity, that there is always a clear outcome. The example does contain a repeat of this "black & white" theme, that "someone will always win, someone loses".
That is the complete phrase. It reads more like a specific example of the conclusion, that law is at war with ambiguity, that there is always a clear outcome. The example does contain a repeat of this "black & white" theme, that "someone will always win, someone loses".
Posted: 05/27/2015 00:58
So it's the rare phenomenon that the conclusion disappear in the middle of sentence,right?