Bank depositors in the United States are all financially : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 11 Dec 2016, 02:06

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Bank depositors in the United States are all financially

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 0

Bank depositors in the United States are all financially [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 11:45
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

75% (02:22) correct 25% (01:38) wrong based on 1029 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 44
Page: 133
Difficulty:

Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting a bank.
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Narenn on 07 Oct 2013, 09:44, edited 3 times in total.
Necessary Corrections for Official Guide Verbal Review 2nd Edition Project
If you have any questions
New!
 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Jamboree Discount Codes Veritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 12:06
I agree

E. The argument depends on the fact that depositors can determine which banks are safe.

B. This weakens by saying that no insurance causes failures which is the opposite of what the economist argue.
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 133
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 12:09
lexis wrote:
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because
the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance
is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures
, since it removes from depositors any
financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure.
If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for
depositors' money.

1. The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?
(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting
a bank.
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a
significant
factor in bank failures.
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

2. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a
lower rate of bank failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a
result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.

(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits
are insured by the government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will
insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed thislimit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are
loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 405 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 12:17
1
KUDOS
E & B
1. The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?
(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.-> out of scope
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.->irrelevant
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting
a bank.-> may be, not necessarily the required assumption
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a
significant factor in bank failures.-> could be we are not sure
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.-> correct, thus investor will not invest the banks that are doomed to fail, thus the required assumption

2. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
Economist's argument->"insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures" answer choice that says insurance and failure are independent is the best one

(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a
lower rate of bank failure than there is now.->supports the economist
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a
result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.-> sounds good
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits
are insured by the government.->irrelevant
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will
insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed thislimit.-> irrelevant
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are
loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.-> irrelevant
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 985 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 20:38
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
lexis wrote:
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because
the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance
is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any
financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure.
If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for
depositors' money.

1. The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?
(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting
a bank.
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a
significant
factor in bank failures.
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

2. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a
lower rate of bank failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a
result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits
are insured by the government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will
insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed thislimit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are
loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.

Hi lexis,
1.
This is OG. If you dont like the OE of OG, you can be advised by this way.
Let see the red colored boldface. That is from where the economist comes to make his conclusion and also exactly what he want to assume. Should not be lured by other things out of scope.

Basing on that clue, you should rephrase the choice so that the meaning of the correct choice is the same as meaning of the colored above!

Spend time rephrasing and see how E fits with that colore boldface! and let me know!

2. I hope you see that this argument is kind of causal reasoning. So, to weaken this causal argument, one of the common ways that GMAC want to test you is find out the alternative cause for the observed effect.
a. observed effect: high rate of bank failures
b. cause that economist claimed: goverment insurants
c. find out the alternate cause: ????B
_________________
Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 55
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [2] , given: 9

Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 02:29
2
KUDOS
Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected against bank failure because the govenment insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly reponsible for the the high rate of bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumption?

1. Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
2. A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks
3. The more a depositor has to deposit, the more carefully he or she tends to be in selecting a bank
4. The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
5. Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

Pls explain your choice. I was confused of "Since...against failure" then I got the wrong choice

Last edited by Zarrolou on 29 Jun 2013, 08:22, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 256
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 03:17
Clear B

Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the the high rate of bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumption?

1. Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments --> this is out of scope, no mentions about the borrowers. This is about the depositors
2. A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks --> best. Because depositors deposit at several different banks, this cause the high rates of banks failures. If they maintain their account in just a few banks, the high rates of failure won't appear and banks must compete more to each other to gain more customers
3. The more a depositor has to deposit, the more carefully he or she tends to be in selecting a bank --> this is not about the amount of deposit money in banks
4. The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures -->interest rate is out of scope
5. Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure -->potential depositors are out of scope
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 45
Location: Austin
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 04:24
IMO I think its E.

Analyzing choice B:
The argument says An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the the high rate of bank failure
So, the insurance is not fully responsible for the issue at hand.Moreover,even if the depositors held accounts in several different banks, that does not guarantee a high rate of bank failures. Implies not necessary "B" is assumed.

However, only if the potential depositors are aware of the risks of bank failures, can they be more selective.
SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1820
Location: New York
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 840 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 05:05
Mikko wrote:
Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected against bank failure because the govenment insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly reponsible for the the high rate of bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumption?

1. Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
2. A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks
3. The more a depositor has to deposit, the more carefully he or she tends to be in selecting a bank
4. The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
5. Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

Pls explain your choice. I was confused of "Since...against failure" then I got the wrong choice

I will agree with E too.

Conclusion:
If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

negate E ..Potential depositors are not able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

then conlcusion falls apart.
_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 13:26
Mikko wrote:
Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected against bank failure because the govenment insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly reponsible for the the high rate of bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumption?

1. Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
2. A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks
3. The more a depositor has to deposit, the more carefully he or she tends to be in selecting a bank
4. The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
5. Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

Pls explain your choice. I was confused of "Since...against failure" then I got the wrong choice

premise:Bank depositors financially protected against bank failure because the govenment insures

premise:economist argues insurance partly reponsible for bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure

coclusion: If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

E undermines the conclusion by questioning whether depositors are able to tell which banks are secure. If they cant, then banks still fail.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 339
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 16:03
I agree with E. Though B is a contender but you can use Assumption negation technique and see that E is undermining the conclusion
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 256
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 18:22
Minheequang wrote:
Clear B--> my fault, B is a strengthen. E is spot-on

Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the the high rate of bank failure, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumption?

1. Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments --> this is out of scope, no mentions about the borrowers. This is about the depositors
2. A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks --> best. Because depositors deposit at several different banks, this cause the high rates of banks failures. If they maintain their account in just a few banks, the high rates of failure won't appear and banks must compete more to each other to gain more customers--> this is a strengthen. Drop it
3. The more a depositor has to deposit, the more carefully he or she tends to be in selecting a bank --> this is not about the amount of deposit money in banks
4. The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures -->interest rate is out of scope
5. Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure -->potential depositors are out of scope-->this is right as you said
Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 55
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

07 May 2009, 19:44
Still can not get it
Tks all anyway

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 108
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 04:00
It's E clearly as denying option E means that the customers won't be able to decide whether the bank is secure or not thus shattering the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 267
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 22:35
One more for E.....They depositors will deposit in secured banks...So they must be able to distinguish secure banks from the non secure ones....
_________________

Choose Life

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 306 [0], given: 106

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2009, 01:16
Another vote for E.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Bank depositors in the United States are allfinancially [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2010, 20:47
Bank depositors in the United States are allfinancially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.
The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?
(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting a bank.
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

which sentence is the conclusion?
a) this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures
b) banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

Thanks.
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 368 [1] , given: 47

Re: OG CR and one more question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2010, 21:44
1
KUDOS
Bank depositors in the United States are allfinancially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.
The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?
(A) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(B) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(C) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting a bank.
(D) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
(E) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.

CN = If depositors were more selective in selecting secure banks, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money

IMO E.... this has a direct relation to the CN above and shows a clear assumption. Even if use the Negation Technique, this option weakens the conclusion.

####################################################################################

which sentence is the conclusion?
a) this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures
b) banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

IMO B is the conclusion!
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 206
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 5

Re: Bank depositors in the United States are allfinancially [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2012, 11:16
The answer to the first question is definitely E:

A. This answer choice is definitely not an assumption to the passage. Although it may be true that bank failures are caused by big borrowers, nowhere in the passage can we assume this. It could be that a lot of little borrowers could be the reason for bank failures. We just can't tell by the passage. Therefore, this answer is incorrect.

B. It is possible for depositors to maintain accounts at several different banks, but this is not a central assumption to the passage. Furthermore, why would individuals need to do this if their money is insured by the government? The reason you would want several accounts at different banks it to spread the risk, but if the government will guarantee your money, this would be unnecessary.

C. This somewhat contradicts the argument. The argument states that depositors never really look into the financial status of the banks.

D. Nowhere do we mention anything about interest rates, so this cannot be assumed.

E. This is a good answer choice because reinforces the argument. The economist states that "removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure." For many individuals, they wouldn't know whether a bank is secure or not. Therefore, the economist has made the assumption that all depositors can find information and interpret this information to come to a conclusion whether the bank is secure against failure or not.
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 15
GMAT Date: 04-20-2013
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2013, 18:42
Mikko wrote:
Still can not get it
Tks all anyway

Conclusion: Banks need to be secure to gain more depositors. Why?
Premise: (To gain/target more depositors,) especially for depositors that are more selective. Most depositors do not know which bank is more secure because of insurance.

I chose C, at first, but this is how I come to understand why C is wrong. The economist cannot assume that ALL depositors who need to deposit more money, ALL will be more selective. It is true for some depositors, but not for all depositors. However, the right answer, E, the economist can assume that for POTENTIAL depositors who know which bank is more secure, these POTENTIAL depositors are more selective. This is true for all potential depositors. Thus, E is a more precise worded assumption.
Re: Assumption, Re: Banking   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2013, 18:42

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially 0 29 Jun 2013, 08:15
Bank depositors in the United States are allfinancially 0 23 Mar 2012, 11:16
1 The United States will soon begin spot checking all 12 28 Aug 2009, 10:29
Bank depositors in the US are all financially protected 0 29 Jun 2013, 08:35
their own bank, the bank s depositors, who had been worried 8 25 Jul 2007, 21:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by