|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
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
[1] , given: 100
|
Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]
 20 Aug 2012, 22:34
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
46% (02:35) correct
53% (01:17) wrong based on 5 sessions
Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, I immediately evaluate whether it is more likely that this person would either lie or be lied to, or that the corruption he describes actually exists. I weigh the self-serving or slanderous motivations that person may have against the evidence that the public official is corrupt. If the evidence outweighs the possibility of slander, then I further investigate the charge. If the author does not further investigate a corruption charge, he assumes that: A. people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons B. corruption never happens among public officials C. the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander D. investigations into the corruption of public officials are usually fruitless E. it is certain that the public official has been slandered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Corrupt Public Officials [#permalink]
22 Aug 2012, 01:50
Given:
Person Claims official is corrupt -> Possibility is it being a lie or the listener is lied to or the official is really corrupt.
Order of investigation: Claim of official being corrupt -> Weigh possibility of self serving motivation or slander on the part of the claimer -> If not slander then further investigate
A. people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons - The person claiming the official to be corrupt has lied for self serving reasons - Correct
B. corruption never happens among public officials - Too strong a statement to make and cannot be generalized to all public officials - Incorrect
C. the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander - If the possiblity of slander is outweighed, it does not automatically mean that evidence of corruption is strong - Incorrect
D. investigations into the corruption of public officials are usually fruitless - Outcome cannot be determined based on assumption - Incorrect
E. it is certain that the public official has been slandered - If futher investigation is not done it means the offical has been slandered. Given in the passage - Incorrect
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: Online GATE Coaching [#permalink]
22 Aug 2012, 04:17
dronacharya wrote: Founded by Alumni of Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institute of Technology, we offer comprehensive & rigorous Training for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering and various Government and Public Sector Unit Jobs.Dronies is one of the institutions that provide one with online e-learning program through GATE online coaching. Online Classroom teaching includes thorough coverage of entire syllabus as per Examination notification. In GATE online we conduct several test of map performance and feedback. Online lectures are helpful to gain good knowledge. Please stop spamming. You have made the same identical post in seven different threads. These threads are meant for meaningful discussions pertaining to the GMAT and not for advertising your firms' services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 93
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.04
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 7
|
Re: Corrupt Public Officials [#permalink]
22 Aug 2012, 05:56
sidhu09 wrote: Given:
Person Claims official is corrupt -> Possibility is it being a lie or the listener is lied to or the official is really corrupt.
Order of investigation: Claim of official being corrupt -> Weigh possibility of self serving motivation or slander on the part of the claimer -> If not slander then further investigate
A. people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons - The person claiming the official to be corrupt has lied for self serving reasons - Correct
B. corruption never happens among public officials - Too strong a statement to make and cannot be generalized to all public officials - Incorrect
C. the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander - If the possiblity of slander is outweighed, it does not automatically mean that evidence of corruption is strong - Incorrect
D. investigations into the corruption of public officials are usually fruitless - Outcome cannot be determined based on assumption - Incorrect
E. it is certain that the public official has been slandered - If futher investigation is not done it means the offical has been slandered. Given in the passage - Incorrect I was confused between A and E. I dont understand why E is wrong. I mean it clearly states that if there is no slander, then only further investigations are carried out. macjas, can you please explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: Corrupt Public Officials [#permalink]
22 Aug 2012, 06:16
mehulsayani wrote: I was confused between A and E. I dont understand why E is wrong.
I mean it clearly states that if there is no slander, then only further investigations are carried out.
macjas, can you please explain? I have to admit that this CR went way over my head  Here's the official explanation: A: his argument presents a dichotomy. When someone claims that a public official is corrupt, the author evaluates whether that claim is true based on evidence or that the person making the claim is lying. The claim is investigated if the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander. (Conversely, the claim is not investigated if the possibility of slander outweighs the evidence of corruption.) This is a bit of a trick question because in either case, the author assumes that people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons, response (A). B: Another assumption made is that public officials are sometimes corrupt, so we can eliminate (B). C and D: C) would be true only in cases when the author further investigates the corruption charge. There is no evidence in the passage for (D). E: (E) is incorrect. By not investigating further, the author isn’t assuming that slander has certainly occurred; he has determined only that the evidence of slander outweighs the evidence of corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 64
Kudos [?]:
314
[0], given: 52
|
Re: Corrupt Public Officials [#permalink]
27 Aug 2012, 10:47
macjas wrote: mehulsayani wrote: I was confused between A and E. I dont understand why E is wrong.
I mean it clearly states that if there is no slander, then only further investigations are carried out.
macjas, can you please explain? I have to admit that this CR went way over my head Here's the official explanation: A: his argument presents a dichotomy. When someone claims that a public official is corrupt, the author evaluates whether that claim is true based on evidence or that the person making the claim is lying. The claim is investigated if the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander. (Conversely, the claim is not investigated if the possibility of slander outweighs the evidence of corruption.) This is a bit of a trick question because in either case, the author assumes that people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons, response (A). B: Another assumption made is that public officials are sometimes corrupt, so we can eliminate (B). C and D: C) would be true only in cases when the author further investigates the corruption charge. There is no evidence in the passage for (D). E: (E) is incorrect. By not investigating further, the author isn’t assuming that slander has certainly occurred; he has determined only that the evidence of slander outweighs the evidence of corruption. Nice explanation mcjas. Even though I understood the stimulus, still I chose E. Got my mistake. Nice question as well. This only tells me that its still a long way to go to destroy the gmat.
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]
13 Sep 2012, 20:10
+1 A I have a more direct way to find the answer in this question: When the author says: "I weigh the self-serving or slanderous motivations that person may have". It's clear that he is assuming that sometimes people lie for self-serving reasons.
_________________
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt,
[#permalink]
13 Sep 2012, 20:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
