|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 43
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Nonprofit
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 3
|
Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized [#permalink]
 22 May 2012, 00:54
Question Stats:
39% (02:16) correct
60% (01:43) wrong based on 4 sessions
Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corp as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Thus it is likely the the embezzler is one of the actuaries. Each of the following weakens the the detective's argument EXCEPT: A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants. B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ access to internal financial record. C. XYZ employs 8 accountants whereas it has only 2 actuaries on it's staff. D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement. E. Certain security measures at XYZ made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 31
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, International Business
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 7
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 01:42
D the option does not have any effect on the conclusion ie . It neither supports nor weakens the conclusion. Hope that helps!!!:D Posted from my mobile device 
_________________
Work with hope in Heart and dreams in the eyes .... And leave the mind for GMAT problems 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 43
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Nonprofit
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 01:54
What about B that also effects neither the actuaries nor the accountants so isn't it a bit similar to D in reasoning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 160
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 11
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 02:06
vasureddy18 wrote: D the option does not have any effect on the conclusion ie . It neither supports nor weakens the conclusion. Hope that helps!!!:D Posted from my mobile device which is not weakening = has no effect? can't it be supporting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 262
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 04:39
IMO it should be C. the number of accountants or actuaries has no impact on the case. An independent assessment says vulnerable to embezzlement could also mean from external sources. what say guys why do you think C is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 262
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 04:43
ok my analysis of the arg is :
Conclusion: actuaries did the embezzlement and not accountants. premise ledger entries were flawed.
A: actuaries scrutinized more so means it was difficult for them to embezzle. Weakens
B: says the breach was external means actuaries are not responsible. weakens
C: IMO right answer
D: independent assessment says system vulnerable - (may be external threats )
E: it was not possible for actuaries to access data - weakens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: UWC
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 403
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
99
[0], given: 100
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 04:58
I chose C and got it wrong but now when I think about it perhaps C does weaken the argument a 'little'.
The argument states that it is likely that the culprit is an actuary. However if all else is equal, statement C tells us that the likelihood of the culprit being an accountant is higher because there are more of them.
Basically, C weakens the argument by bringing in a new idea, not by attacking the authors assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 262
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 20:07
I think this question stem is not up to GMAT standards. I mean for both options C&D. We are assuming things not mentioned in the answer options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[1] , given: 22
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 22:23
1
This post received
KUDOS
A. Weakens the arguement
B. Accountants are considered insiders who have access to financial records whereas Actuaries are considered outsiders - weakens the arguement
C.8 accountants, 2 actuaries - Numbers dont necessarily mean that 2 Actuaries cannot commit the crime. - Doubtful option
D. Neutral stand - Does not qualify to have a positive or negative stand
E. Weakens the arguement.
Can be between C and D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Re: Actuaries vs. Accountants: CR [#permalink]
22 May 2012, 22:42
+1 D Choice D doesn't provide information about who would be more likely of being guilty.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 272
GMAT 1: 750 Q V
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
35
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized [#permalink]
08 Jul 2012, 19:33
+1 D. That option supports neither accountants nor actuaries. Cheers, Der alte Fritz.
_________________
+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 323
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 68
|
Re: Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized [#permalink]
28 Feb 2013, 22:43
Just want to clear some air regarding the option (C). Conclusion mentions "likely" ,which means probability.Therefore, if the number of actuary is less than the number of accountants then actuary is less likely the culprit. Well that will help surely
_________________
Plz Correct me if I am deviating somewhere!!
Consider KUDOS if the post was informative!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized
[#permalink]
28 Feb 2013, 22:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
