This practice GMAT test includes GMAT critical reasoning questions, which are part of the GMAT verbal section.
End Test Now
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” In this passage, the author is primarily trying to:
A. Compare two pieces of proposed legislation and highlight the differences.
B. Warn against the consequences of a foolish action by government.
C. Frighten the reader as to the consequences of the police having too many powers.
D. Suggest a remedy for a problem.
E. Complain about legislation that has been passed.
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” The author admits that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a “heinous act requiring a strong response” in order to:
A. Suggest that people suspected of terrorism have human rights too.
B. Counteract a possible argument that might be raised to his suggestion.
C. Support the anti-terrorist bill proposed by the government.
D. Contrast the attack with those carried out by dogs before the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed.
E. None of these
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” Which of the following is an example of an action that would become legal if the bill proposed became law?
A. A suspected terrorist is detained in prison for a month before his trial comes to court.
B. The assets of a convicted terrorist are confiscated as part of his punishment in order to pay reparations to his victim.
C. The appropriate government official refuses to admit a person to the country on the grounds that he is suspected of having committed a terrorist act abroad.
D. A judge is empowered to increase the length of the prison sentence of a person convicted of planting a car-bomb.
E. The police intercept an E-mail sent to a person suspected of having planned a terrorist attack.
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” We may conclude from the passage that the author regards the Dangerous Dogs Act as:
A. A piece of necessary legislation.
B. A piece of legislation that achieved everything that was expected of it.
C. A law that had many unfortunate and unforeseen side effects.
D. A law which contravened European legislation.
E. A law enacted merely because of public disgust at dog attacks reported in the media.
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” According to the passage, in what way would the proposed bill counteract European legislation?
A. It denies individuals their right not to have their private communications read by the authorities.
B. It gives the police extra powers to investigate suspected terrorists.
C. It would allow the authorities to seize the assets of people suspected of being terrorists.
D. It would result in the conviction of many dog owners whose dogs had not attacked anyone.
“Within the last few days, the British government has announced its intention to bring in anti-terrorist legislation in response to the events of September 11th. No one can deny that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a heinous act requiring a strong response – but it should be an appropriate one! What is the nature of the legislation that is now proposed? The main thrust of the act is that would-be terrorists are to be denied the where-with-all to carry out their crimes in this country. To this end, the bill proposes that it should be possible for people suspected of terrorist intent to be detained without trial for an indefinite period while such suspicions are investigated, that their assets should be seized, or at least frozen, to prevent them from being misused in the execution of a crime, and finally, that the law-enforcement authorities should be granted further powers to carry out surveillance on personal communications of an aural or written nature. This is another example of “legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, brought about as a knee-jerk reaction to one devastating act that has entered the public consciousness. One cannot help remembering the Dangerous Dogs Act, which introduced draconian restrictions on various breeds of dogs, following a series of lurid newspaper articles showing children who had been mauled by dogs. Although undoubtedly much damage to life and limb has been avoided by the act, it is outweighed by the fact that many innocent dogs, and their owners, have been punished unnecessarily. It might be argued that the proposals are entirely reasonable – after all, who could probably object to proposals that would increase our security? However, the fast pace at which the law is being pushed through Parliament leaves many problems – aspects of the law which will produce legal nonsense in the future. European law enshrines the right of every European citizen to have privacy and liberty until and unless convicted of a crime, yet the proposed bill would ride rough-shod over these rights.” The main point that the author is attempting to put in this passage is:
A. The government has no right to introduce legislation which countermands European law.
B. Law which is rapidly enacted as an immediate response to a crisis is often bad law.
C. There is absolutely no doubt that the introduction of the proposed bill will lead to further erosion of civil liberties.
D. Anti-terrorism law will have no effect, as criminals will find a way of by-passing it.
E. The laws on terrorism currently on the statute books give too many powers to the police.
When you are sure that you have answered as many questions as possible, click the ‘Done’ button below and view your results.