Question Description
Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions:Each of these critical reasoning practice questions are based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.A small group of law professors have suggested that the university’s current JD program be restructured so students can spend more time reading case studies and studying independently since a wide knowledge of legal precedent is key to the success of its alumni. These professors are advocating an end to the public-speaking class requirement. But there is an obvious benefit to training young attorneys to speak confidently and articulately in court, and recent graduates of the program have remarked that they were frequently required to verbally describe case studies to colleagues.Q. Which of the following most logically concludes the argument?e.a)These law professors are incorrect in their assumption that more time reading case studies independently will lead to alumni success.b)Alumni success, therefore, is contingent upon an equal balance between public-speaking and reading case studies.c)Attorneys who cannot verbally articulate case studies will not have as much success in the workplace as those who can.d)Keeping the public-speaking class in the curriculum is not wholly inconsistent with the law professors’ goal of fostering alumni success.e)The university should expand the public-speaking requirement, rather than omit it, as verbal skills are just as valuable as case study knowledge in the workplace.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.