All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusi... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
  • a)
    Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
  • b)
    A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
  • c)
    A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
  • d)
    Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
  • e)
    A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids...
The passage discusses the exclusionary rule, which prevents a court from considering evidence that was obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The author argues that this rule has unduly hindered law enforcement efforts, even in cases where the rights violation was minor or technical and the police officers acted in good faith. The author claims that guilty defendants have been set free as a result, potentially leading to further crimes being committed.
Based on this information, the author would most likely endorse the proposal of changing the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith (option A). This proposal suggests that evidence obtained by police officers who were acting in good faith, even if there was a minor rights violation or a procedural error, should be considered admissible in court.
The other options do not align with the author's viewpoint as presented in the passage:
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime: The passage does not discuss curtailing protections for the accused; it focuses on the impact of the exclusionary rule on law enforcement.
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses: While the author mentions minor violations, they argue that even in those cases, the exclusionary rule hampers law enforcement efforts. Therefore, the author would not likely endorse limiting the application of the rule to minor offenses.
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court: The passage does not explicitly argue for allowing any evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. It specifically mentions good faith and minor violations as criteria for admissibility.
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal: The passage does not discuss allowing police officers to obtain evidence by any means necessary. It focuses on the impact of the exclusionary rule on the admissibility of evidence.
Therefore, the best inference is that the author would endorse the proposal of changing the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith (option A).
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

For millennia, the Nile River flooded nearly every year as a natural consequence of heavy summer rains on the Ethiopian Plateau; in the last century, as the population in the region exploded, the cycle of flooding interspersed with periodic drought caused widespread suffering for the local population. In the mid-1950s, the Egyptian government concluded that a significant dam was necessary to enable the country’s economic development to be on a par with that of Western nations. The Aswan Dam would prevent the annual flooding, generate hydroelectric power and supply a steady source of water for residents and agricultural activities, though it would also have other, less positive effects.By the 1970s, most Egyptian villages had electric power, and the dam provided approximately half of Egypt’s entire output of electricity. The benefits were counteracted, however, by consequences which were sometimes slow to appear but ruinous in their long-term effects. Dams prevent silt from flowing through to downstream lands.The silt is essential for renewing the minerals and nutrients that make the land fertile; before the dam, the Nile floodplain was famously productive. Farmers have had to substitute artificial fertilizers, reducing profits and causing pervasive chemical pollution with deleterious effects for the human, animal and plant populations living near or in the river. It is difficult to draw definite conclusions about a project with such substantial and varied results, but it would be untenable to assert that the Egyptian government should never have built the Aswan Dam.Q.Based upon the content of the passage, the author would most likely agree with which of the following propositions?

PassageMost educated people of the eighteenth century, such as the Founding Fathers, subscribed to Natural Rights Theory, the idea that every human being has a considerable number of innate rights, simply by virtue of being a human person. When the US Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, many at that time felt that the federal government outlined by the Constitution would be too strong, and that rights of individual citizens against the government had to be clarified. This led to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which were ratified at the same time as the Constitution. The first eight of these amendments list specific rights of citizens. Some leaders feared that listingsomerights could be interpreted to mean that citizens didn’t haveother, unlisted rights. Toward this end, James Madison and others produced the Ninth Amendment, which states: the fact that certain rights are listed in the Constitution shall not be construed to imply that other rights of the people are deniedConstitutional traditionalists interpret the Ninth Amendment as a rule for reading the rest of the constitution. They would argue that “Ninth Amendment rights” are a misconceived notion: the amendment does not, by itself, create federally enforceable rights. In particular, this strict reasoning would be opposed to the creation of any new rights based on the amendment. Rather, according to this view, the amendment merely protects those rights that citizens already have, whether they are explicitly listed in the Constitution or simply implicit in people’s lives and in American tradition.More liberal interpreters of the US Constitution have a much more expansive view of the Ninth Amendment. In their view, the Ninth Amendment guarantees to American citizens a vast universe of potential rights, some of which we have enjoyed for two centuries, and others that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have conceived. These scholars point out that some rights, such as voting rights of women or minorities, were not necessarily viewed as rights by the majority of citizens in late eighteenth century America, but are taken as fundamental and unquestionable in modern America. While those rights cited are protected specifically by other amendments and laws, the argument asserts that other unlisted right also could evolve from unthinkable to perfectly acceptable, and the Ninth Amendment would protect these as-yet-undefined rights.Q.According to the passage, what would the Ninth Amendment imply about a right to “a trial by jury”, guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution?

PassageMost educated people of the eighteenth century, such as the Founding Fathers, subscribed to Natural Rights Theory, the idea that every human being has a considerable number of innate rights, simply by virtue of being a human person. When the US Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, many at that time felt that the federal government outlined by the Constitution would be too strong, and that rights of individual citizens against the government had to be clarified. This led to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which were ratified at the same time as the Constitution. The first eight of these amendments list specific rights of citizens. Some leaders feared that listingsomerights could be interpreted to mean that citizens didn’t haveother, unlisted rights. Toward this end, James Madison and others produced the Ninth Amendment, which states: the fact that certain rights are listed in the Constitution shall not be construed to imply that other rights of the people are deniedConstitutional traditionalists interpret the Ninth Amendment as a rule for reading the rest of the constitution. They would argue that “Ninth Amendment rights” are a misconceived notion: the amendment does not, by itself, create federally enforceable rights. In particular, this strict reasoning would be opposed to the creation of any new rights based on the amendment. Rather, according to this view, the amendment merely protects those rights that citizens already have, whether they are explicitly listed in the Constitution or simply implicit in people’s lives and in American tradition.More liberal interpreters of the US Constitution have a much more expansive view of the Ninth Amendment. In their view, the Ninth Amendment guarantees to American citizens a vast universe of potential rights, some of which we have enjoyed for two centuries, and others that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have conceived. These scholars point out that some rights, such as voting rights of women or minorities, were not necessarily viewed as rights by the majority of citizens in late eighteenth century America, but are taken as fundamental and unquestionable in modern America. While those rights cited are protected specifically by other amendments and laws, the argument asserts that other unlisted right also could evolve from unthinkable to perfectly acceptable, and the Ninth Amendment would protect these as-yet-undefined rights.Q.The author cites the scholars referring to “voting rights of women or minorities” in order to

PassageMost educated people of the eighteenth century, such as the Founding Fathers, subscribed to Natural Rights Theory, the idea that every human being has a considerable number of innate rights, simply by virtue of being a human person. When the US Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, many at that time felt that the federal government outlined by the Constitution would be too strong, and that rights of individual citizens against the government had to be clarified. This led to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which were ratified at the same time as the Constitution. The first eight of these amendments list specific rights of citizens. Some leaders feared that listingsomerights could be interpreted to mean that citizens didn’t haveother, unlisted rights. Toward this end, James Madison and others produced the Ninth Amendment, which states: the fact that certain rights are listed in the Constitution shall not be construed to imply that other rights of the people are deniedConstitutional traditionalists interpret the Ninth Amendment as a rule for reading the rest of the constitution. They would argue that “Ninth Amendment rights” are a misconceived notion: the amendment does not, by itself, create federally enforceable rights. In particular, this strict reasoning would be opposed to the creation of any new rights based on the amendment. Rather, according to this view, the amendment merely protects those rights that citizens already have, whether they are explicitly listed in the Constitution or simply implicit in people’s lives and in American tradition.More liberal interpreters of the US Constitution have a much more expansive view of the Ninth Amendment. In their view, the Ninth Amendment guarantees to American citizens a vast universe of potential rights, some of which we have enjoyed for two centuries, and others that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have conceived. These scholars point out that some rights, such as voting rights of women or minorities, were not necessarily viewed as rights by the majority of citizens in late eighteenth century America, but are taken as fundamental and unquestionable in modern America. While those rights cited are protected specifically by other amendments and laws, the argument asserts that other unlisted right also could evolve from unthinkable to perfectly acceptable, and the Ninth Amendment would protect these as-yet-undefined rights.Q.In the view of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers, the Ninth Amendment limits the power of the central Federal government by

PassageMost educated people of the eighteenth century, such as the Founding Fathers, subscribed to Natural Rights Theory, the idea that every human being has a considerable number of innate rights, simply by virtue of being a human person. When the US Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, many at that time felt that the federal government outlined by the Constitution would be too strong, and that rights of individual citizens against the government had to be clarified. This led to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which were ratified at the same time as the Constitution. The first eight of these amendments list specific rights of citizens. Some leaders feared that listingsomerights could be interpreted to mean that citizens didn’t haveother, unlisted rights. Toward this end, James Madison and others produced the Ninth Amendment, which states: the fact that certain rights are listed in the Constitution shall not be construed to imply that other rights of the people are deniedConstitutional traditionalists interpret the Ninth Amendment as a rule for reading the rest of the constitution. They would argue that “Ninth Amendment rights” are a misconceived notion: the amendment does not, by itself, create federally enforceable rights. In particular, this strict reasoning would be opposed to the creation of any new rights based on the amendment. Rather, according to this view, the amendment merely protects those rights that citizens already have, whether they are explicitly listed in the Constitution or simply implicit in people’s lives and in American tradition.More liberal interpreters of the US Constitution have a much more expansive view of the Ninth Amendment. In their view, the Ninth Amendment guarantees to American citizens a vast universe of potential rights, some of which we have enjoyed for two centuries, and others that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have conceived. These scholars point out that some rights, such as voting rights of women or minorities, were not necessarily viewed as rights by the majority of citizens in late eighteenth century America, but are taken as fundamental and unquestionable in modern America. While those rights cited are protected specifically by other amendments and laws, the argument asserts that other unlisted right also could evolve from unthinkable to perfectly acceptable, and the Ninth Amendment would protect these as-yet-undefined rights.Q.Constitutional scholars of both the traditionalist and liberal views would agree that “Ninth Amendment rights”

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?a)Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faithb)A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crimec)A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offensesd)Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in courte)A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminalCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup