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 Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since [#permalink]
18 Aug 2009, 08:08

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:50) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa. Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

B.Sandra earns more commission than Lisa

C.Sandra earns more commission than Andrew

D.Sandra and Andrew earn the same amount of commission

E.Bill and Andrew earn the same amount of commission OA later after discussion..

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]
18 Aug 2009, 08:37

I'd write down everything with some pointers:

Original argument: Premise 1. B > S Premise 2. A > L Conclusion. B > L

A. A > B - this does not invalidate the argument. You could have A > B > L, which would use up "A", Premise 2 and Conclusion.

B. S > L - this one is good too. Since we have B > S (Premise 1), adding S > L means that B > S > L, which ultimately leeds to the conclusion.

C. S > A - good as well. If B > S (from Premise 1) and S > A (from C) and A > L (Premise 2), you get that B > S > L, which again takes you to the conclusion.

D. S = A - works. It's basically the same as with C.

E. B = A - it's basically A all over again.

I'm getting that all of them are correct. I'm making a mistake somewhere, maybe someone else can help...

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]
18 Aug 2009, 09:08

Original argument: Premise 1. B > S Premise 2. A > L Conclusion.B > L

1. A > B - We can have A > B > S by this and Premise 2 says A > L. We cannot prove that B > L via this. Correct answer

2. S > L - From Premise 1 we know already know that B > S. So S > L makes argument logically correct

3. S > A - From Premise 2 we know A > L and from Premise 1 we know B > S. Therefore B > L makes the argument logically correct

4. S = A - From Premise 2 we know A > L. Therefore if S = A then we can say that S > L. Premise 1 says that B > S. Hence makes the argument logically correct

5. B = A - Premise 2 says A > L and if B = A we can say that B > L which makes the argument logically correct.

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]
18 Aug 2009, 11:37

DanaJ wrote:

I'd write down everything with some pointers:

Original argument: Premise 1. B > S Premise 2. A > L Conclusion. B > L must be B > A > L

A. A > B - this does not invalidate the argument. You could have A > B > L, which would use up "A", Premise 2 and Conclusion.

in ascending order S < B L < A (it follows that L < B) then definetly Bill must be earning more than Andrew, only then we can decide Bill also earns more than Lisa so L < A < B

A. B < A this is false , as per our derived result

B. L < S , possible

C. A < S (doesnot violate S B) , possible

D S and A same amount (till within B) so possible

E B and A same amount possible, they are top two earners, so conflict

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]
18 Aug 2009, 15:27

crejoc wrote:

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa. Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

B.Sandra earns more commission than Lisa

C.Sandra earns more commission than Andrew

D.Sandra and Andrew earn the same amount of commission

E.Bill and Andrew earn the same amount of commission OA later after discussion..

A. andrew earning more than bill meaning bill and lisa earn less than andrew, doesnt say anything about bill and lisa

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]
19 Aug 2009, 01:06

crejoc wrote:

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa. Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

OA later after discussion..

bill>sandra andrew>lisa

if andrew>bill we do not know if bill and lisa get the same amount or lisa get higher amount therefore its our answer _________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since [#permalink]
18 Jul 2014, 01:45

1. B>S 2. A>L

is B>L ?

A. Correct answer

it says A>B, so we have two options

A>B>L or A>L>B

So, this option is insufficient to conclude the answer (whether B>L or L>B), that's what question asks. We have to choose one option that can't complete the logic.

gmatclubot

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since
[#permalink]
18 Jul 2014, 01:45