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

It is currently 19 Apr 2014, 07:36

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

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
5 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Schools: Wharton
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 91 [5] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 06:10
5
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

49% (02:18) correct 50% (02:11) wrong based on 581 sessions
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the “Big Four” firms into smaller operations, so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.

Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 186
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [3] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 07:57
3
This post received
KUDOS
Really tough one as none of the answer looks good. Lets discuss it:

Conclusion: After splitting the companies should have more accounting options for their audit and non-audit services.

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
Irrelevant and this will by no mean provide more options.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
Irrelevant as it does not matter where the CEOs come from.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
This limits the options with the companies.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
Irrelevant
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
This can be the answer IMO as by doing this each small accounting firm will have the capability of providing both audit and non audit service and hence will give more options to the companies.
Director
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 552
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 08:30
lets think it further, what do we mean by "success" of CEOs plan ... OR why did they suggest the plan anyway... why do we need more options for companies selecting an accounting firm...

one reason could be.. before federal regulation companies had only one accounting firm taking care of both audit and non audit work... now for several reasons (confidentialty may be) ..companies dont want to change the accounting firms but still they have to follow the federal regulation.... SO CEO suggested that divide the accounting firm into two .. keep the audit work with the old firm and give the non audit work to the new one ( same people, new name ) ....

So both the federal regulations and the other objective (not to change the accouting firm) are met.

C IMO...
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Schools: Wharton
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 08:33
grepro wrote:
Really tough one as none of the answer looks good. Lets discuss it:

Conclusion: After splitting the companies should have more accounting options for their audit and non-audit services.

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
Irrelevant and this will by no mean provide more options.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
Irrelevant as it does not matter where the CEOs come from.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
This limits the options with the companies.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
Irrelevant
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
This can be the answer IMO as by doing this each small accounting firm will have the capability of providing both audit and non audit service and hence will give more options to the companies.


I chose C for this one because it allows the new firms to immediately get business, helping them get off the ground.

I don't disagree with you choice for E.

I read E as "The Big Four audit firms will keep their audit and non-audit business and spin off other parts of their business." My reading of that option meant that option E contradicts the first premise in the stimulus.

This question is from a gmatclub verbal test. I will post OA and OE after a few other responses.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 186
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 08:37
Initially i also read E the way you did however on rethinking it can also mean that a big firm may have several small sections consisting of audit and non audit teams (may be i went too far....)
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 12:32
IMO E.

Federal regulations require separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services but this presents difficulties for big firms. If big firms divide into small part, they look like separate units though their processes will be same.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Schools: Wharton
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 91 [1] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 13:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
OA/OE is below

Anyone else think that the OA/OE is just plain wrong? The OE seems to say that E imples that the Big Four firms will break into separate auditing and non-auditing companies. I posted this to make sure I wasn't going crazy...

Situation: A group of CEOs has proposed that the Big Four accounting firms be broken into smaller firms so that corporations will have more options for audit and non-audit services.

Reasoning: Which added provision will help assure the success of the CEOs’ plan? The CEOs suggest breaking up the Big Four firms so that corporations can have more choices for their audit and non-audit services, which must, by federal regulation, not be performed by the same firm. Anything that further insures that audit and non-audit services will be kept separate in breaking up the firms will also assure that CEOs will get the added variety they are seeking.

1. This option does not directly impact the question of variety.
2. The origin of new CEOs does not deal with variety or with the separating of audit and non-audit services.
3. This provision specifies what decisions corporations may be allowed to make, but it does not insure variety.
4. This option does not directly impact the question of variety.
5. If each Big Four firm breaks into two – one performing audit services, and one performing non-audit services – then the field will have gained the variety sought by CEOs.

The correct answer is E.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 55
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 16 Aug 2008, 19:57
1
This post received
KUDOS
grepro wrote:
Really tough one as none of the answer looks good. Lets discuss it:

Conclusion: After splitting the companies should have more accounting options for their audit and non-audit services.

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
Irrelevant and this will by no mean provide more options.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
Irrelevant as it does not matter where the CEOs come from.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
This limits the options with the companies.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
Irrelevant
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
This can be the answer IMO as by doing this each small accounting firm will have the capability of providing both audit and non audit service and hence will give more options to the companies.

Good explanation, thanks lot!!!
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 193
Location: Finland
Schools: Admitted: IESE($$),HEC, RSM,Esade
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 58 [1] , given: 18

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 03:50
1
This post received
KUDOS
zoinnk wrote:
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the “Big Four” firms into smaller operations, so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.

Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.

E.
Conclusion: Big four firms into smaller options so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.
Now lets look for a hole in this argument. The weakness in this argument is that the CEO thinks that when the BIG Four are broken up, there will be more number of accounting firms providin auditing and non-auditing needs equally. But how can we be sure that there will be equal number of audit and non-audit sections. To close this gap, we choose E because it eliminates the possibility of not having equal number of auditing and non-auditing firms.
Director
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 509
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 66

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 07:55
shekharvineet wrote:
zoinnk wrote:
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the “Big Four” firms into smaller operations, so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.

Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.

E.
Conclusion: Big four firms into smaller options so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.
Now lets look for a hole in this argument. The weakness in this argument is that the CEO thinks that when the BIG Four are broken up, there will be more number of accounting firms providin auditing and non-auditing needs equally. But how can we be sure that there will be equal number of audit and non-audit sections. To close this gap, we choose E because it eliminates the possibility of not having equal number of auditing and non-auditing firms.



Well explained.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 11
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 09:03
IMO E...

I got to get this one right.... (coz i used to work for a Big Four Accounting Firm... :P )
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 149

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 09:43
grepro wrote:
Really tough one as none of the answer looks good. Lets discuss it:

Conclusion: After splitting the companies should have more accounting options for their audit and non-audit services.

(A) The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
Irrelevant and this will by no mean provide more options.
(B) CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
Irrelevant as it does not matter where the CEOs come from.
(C) Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
This limits the options with the companies.
(D) The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
Irrelevant
(E) The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
This can be the answer IMO as by doing this each small accounting firm will have the capability of providing both audit and non audit service and hence will give more options to the companies.

your explanation does not fit well with the option.What your explanation says has already been suggested by the group.The question stem asks for an assumption.
This is an assumption question.
If the audit section is broken down into 3 different sections A1,A2,A3.
How does it matter to the client if it hires A1,A2, or A3 to do the auditing
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 149

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 09:51
What does option E mean. does it mean that the auditing section is broken down into 3 autonomous sections which have absolutely no interdependency
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html

Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 122
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: USC (Marshall) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V46
GPA: 3.26
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 5

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 11:36
mundasingh123 wrote:
your explanation does not fit well with the option.What your explanation says has already been suggested by the group.The question stem asks for an assumption.
This is an assumption question.
If the audit section is broken down into 3 different sections A1,A2,A3.
How does it matter to the client if it hires A1,A2, or A3 to do the auditing


This is not an assumption question. This is more of a "strengthen the conclusion" question.
_________________

Discipline + Hard Work = Success! 770 (Q50, V46)

Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 109
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 12

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 12:36
its E
Manager
Manager
Status: ISB, Hyderabad
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 176
WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 15

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 20:45
Great Question. +1 to zoinnk for posting the question.
_________________

-AD

Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 22:09
This is a +1 question.Couldn't find any relavent answer but chose E based on poe.
A-not about contacts.
B-not about choosing ceo's
C-almost a restatement of premise.
D-not about maintaining internal audit procedures.
E is left.
Please help out with this one.
_________________

Kingfisher
The king of good times and a companion in bad ones......

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 238
Location: India
WE 1: 6 Year, Telecom(GSM)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 21

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2010, 23:34
A very good question. :shock:
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 85
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 9

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 07 Oct 2010, 11:26
E.. :D

had already seen this question either in the forums or through mgmat.
_________________

Click that thing :) - Give kudos if u like this

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 280
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR -- Accounting Firms [#permalink] New post 07 Oct 2010, 19:30
IMO E.
_________________

Trying hard to achieve something unachievable now....

Re: CR -- Accounting Firms   [#permalink] 07 Oct 2010, 19:30
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal YHP 8 15 Aug 2007, 16:43
New posts Federal regulations require that corporations use separate prasun84 9 19 Nov 2008, 10:45
Popular new posts Federal regulations require that corporations use separate noboru 12 02 Aug 2009, 11:19
New posts 5 The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal eybrj2 9 29 Feb 2012, 14:15
New posts Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate a unknown5386 3 07 Apr 2014, 06:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ] 



cron

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®.