Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 21:33

Close

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
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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

CR Smuggling

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

CR Smuggling [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2004, 13:01
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Another one
Attachments

CR15.jpg
CR15.jpg [ 46.63 KiB | Viewed 500 times ]

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 224
Location: Utrecht
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2004, 13:13
I think I will choose answer D.

In D it is mentioned that the inspector decided not to search some tourists, while the tourist knew themselves they were carrying contraband.
The inspector mentions that he could always know if someone is carrying contraband. Obviously not, because he will not inspect some tourists while the tourists know they carry contraband.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Alex
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 893
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2004, 13:21
I would think E. Those carrying contraband knowingly may choose to deceive and be caught. However, those carrying contraband unwittingly may show no signs and the inspector can miss such people.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2004, 22:44
i would choose D. the inspector is trying to prove that he always knows when someone is trying to cheat him... but if someone who is trying to cheat him (by wittingly carrying contraband) passes unstopped, then his accuracy in detecting intent isn't perfect.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2004, 18:22
Another vote for E folks. It alone exposes the logical flaw inherent in the inspectors argument. The argument - inspector can always TELL whoever is carrying contraband and TRYING to deceive him. However how about if someone is carrying contraband unwittingly. In this case there's no deliberate attempt to deceive and hence the inspector wouldn't sense it.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 593
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2004, 21:42
Fact: Guy points hand at some one and they turn up being bad guys, carrying contraband goods.
Conclusion: Guy is good in finding people who deceive.

The missing piece is, "What about people whom does not point hand at? Are they always good guys?"
If the answer is "Yes", then it makes sense to say he is good in finding cheaters.

This flaw is pointed in D.

(I am a little skeptical about the use of "could" in all four choices except C. Using "could" does not make a strong objection. It would have been better if it were a past-tense-fact)
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 971
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2004, 21:51
yep. D proposes valid criticism
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2004, 06:50
Argument - the inspector, based on his 10 years experience, has always been able to catch those carrying contraband and trying to deceive him. One of the central pieces of his argument relies on the assumption that those carrying contraband knowingly try to deceive him and he catches them.

E exposes a possiblity that some people may unknowingly carry contraband and hence there would be no question of them trying to deceive. This exposes a LOGICAL FLAW in the inspector's argument that he can always tell those carrying contraband.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 606
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2004, 10:34
OA is D Thanks all for nice explanation.
  [#permalink] 18 Sep 2004, 10:34
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
"poached, then smuggled" as a compound absolute clause sitie 1 03 Oct 2012, 00:37
A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country sidbidus 6 11 Jul 2007, 10:56
A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country nakib77 11 01 Nov 2005, 03:45
cr forrestgump 5 05 Aug 2005, 21:28
CR harshi 8 11 Mar 2005, 14:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

CR Smuggling

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.