Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest. Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient. A government efficiency expert has found that almost all provisional arrests meet standards for adequacy of evidence that watch commanders enforce. The expert therefore recommends that the watch commander's approval should no longer be required since the officers' time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted. This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous, however, since there is no assurance that the watch commanders' standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required.

In the editorial, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is a recommendation made by the editorial; the second acknowledges a potential objection against that recommendation.

The first is a proposal against which the editorial is directed; the second is a judgment reached by the editorial concerning that proposal.

The first provides evidence in support of a recommendation that the editorial supports; the second is the conclusion reached by the editorial.

The first is a position that the editorial challenges; the second is a judgment that was made in support of that challenged position.

The first is a recommendation that the editorial questions; the second provides evidence against that recommendation.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
"An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest."	What it says: Police arrests in Midville require two steps - first the officer makes a provisional arrest, then a watch commander must approve it at the station. Visualization: Officer arrests suspect → Takes to station → Watch commander reviews → Official arrest (Current process: 2 steps required) Source: Author explaining the current system
"Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient."	What it says: The watch commander can reject the arrest if they think there isn't enough evidence to justify it. Visualization: Strong evidence case → Commander approves → Official arrest vs Weak evidence case → Commander denies → No official arrest Source: Author explaining current system rules
"A government efficiency expert has found that almost all provisional arrests meet standards for adequacy of evidence that watch commanders enforce."	What it says: An efficiency expert studied the system and discovered that nearly all arrests brought to watch commanders have sufficient evidence and get approved. Visualization: Out of 100 provisional arrests → 95+ meet evidence standards → 95+ get approved (Very high approval rate) What it does: This introduces expert evidence that suggests the approval process might be unnecessary since almost all arrests pass anyway Source: Government efficiency expert's finding
(Boldface 1) "that the watch commander's approval should no longer be required"	What it says: The expert concludes that since almost all arrests get approved anyway, the approval step should be eliminated entirely. Visualization: Current: Officer arrest → Commander approval → Official (2 steps) vs Proposed: Officer arrest → Official (1 step, save time) What it does: This presents the expert's recommendation to eliminate the approval requirement Source: Government efficiency expert's recommendation
"since the officers' time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted."	What it says: The expert's reasoning is that officers are wasting time on an approval process that almost always results in approval anyway. Visualization: Current system: Officer spends 30 minutes per arrest on approval process → 95% of time this results in approval anyway → 28.5 minutes wasted per arrest What it does: This provides the expert's reasoning for why the approval should be eliminated Source: Government efficiency expert's reasoning
(Boldface 2) "This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous"	What it says: The author (editorial writer) argues that the expert's recommendation to eliminate approval requirements is dangerous and should not be implemented. Visualization: Expert says: Remove approval process → Author says: Dangerous idea → Should reject recommendation What it does: This is the author's main conclusion opposing the expert's recommendation Source: Author's main conclusion
"since there is no assurance that the watch commanders' standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required."	What it says: The author's reasoning is that just because standards are currently being met doesn't mean they will continue to be met if there's no oversight. Visualization: Current: 95% good arrests with commander oversight → Future without oversight: Could drop to 70% or 60% good arrests (No guarantee standards maintained) What it does: This provides the author's reasoning for rejecting the expert's recommendation Source: Author's reasoning

Overall Structure

The author is presenting and then rejecting an expert's recommendation. The flow is: current system description → expert's findings and recommendation → author's rejection of that recommendation.

Main Conclusion: The expert's recommendation to eliminate watch commander approval should be rejected as dangerous.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: that the watch commander's approval should no longer be required
Boldface 2: This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: This is the expert's recommendation that the author is discussing
Direction: Opposite direction - this opposes the author's ultimate position since the author argues this recommendation should be rejected

Boldface 2:

Function: This is the author's main conclusion rejecting the expert's recommendation
Direction: Same direction - this IS the author's main conclusion/ultimate position

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: A recommendation from an external source that the author argues against
Predicted Answer Patterns: "a recommendation that the author argues against," "a proposal that the author rejects"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: The author's main conclusion
Predicted Answer Patterns: "the author's main conclusion," "the author's position on the recommendation"

Answer Choices Explained

The first is a recommendation made by the editorial; the second acknowledges a potential objection against that recommendation.

The first is a recommendation made by the editorial - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface is the expert's recommendation, not the editorial's. The editorial actually opposes this recommendation.
the second acknowledges a potential objection against that recommendation - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't acknowledge an objection; it IS the editorial's strong rejection of the recommendation.

The first is a proposal against which the editorial is directed; the second is a judgment reached by the editorial concerning that proposal.

The first is a proposal against which the editorial is directed - ✓ CORRECT - The expert's recommendation to eliminate approval requirements is exactly what the editorial argues against.
the second is a judgment reached by the editorial concerning that proposal - ✓ CORRECT - The editorial's conclusion that the recommendation should be rejected as dangerous is indeed the editorial's judgment about the proposal.

The first provides evidence in support of a recommendation that the editorial supports; the second is the conclusion reached by the editorial.

The first provides evidence in support of a recommendation that the editorial supports - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface IS a recommendation (not evidence), and the editorial opposes it rather than supports it.
the second is the conclusion reached by the editorial - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface is indeed the editorial's main conclusion.

The first is a position that the editorial challenges; the second is a judgment that was made in support of that challenged position.

The first is a position that the editorial challenges - ✓ CORRECT - The editorial does challenge the expert's recommendation.
the second is a judgment that was made in support of that challenged position - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface opposes the challenged position, it doesn't support it.

The first is a recommendation that the editorial questions; the second provides evidence against that recommendation.

The first is a recommendation that the editorial questions - ✓ CORRECT - The editorial does question (actually rejects) the expert's recommendation.
the second provides evidence against that recommendation - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is the editorial's conclusion, not evidence. The evidence comes in the reasoning that follows.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...