Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 09 Dec 2016, 05:06

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Affiliations: UWC
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 399
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 1054 [2] , given: 100

Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2012, 21:34
2
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:32) correct 50% (01:36) wrong based on 593 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 22

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 00:50
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: 399
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 1054 [0], given: 100

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 03:17
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.

Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 04:56
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.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: UWC
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 399
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 1054 [1] , given: 100

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 05:16
1
KUDOS
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.

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.
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 174

Kudos [?]: 1303 [0], given: 62

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2012, 09:47
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.

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.
_________________
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1712
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 95

Kudos [?]: 888 [0], given: 109

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2012, 19:10
+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: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [1] , given: 35

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 13:09
1
KUDOS
macjas wrote:
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

Good Questions. Here's how I approached this question. When I read the stimulus and the question, my first thought was that the author assumes the claimer to have a self-serving reason to defame the public official. He then proves his own assumption wrong by investigating the claimer. Once he is satisfied that the claimer is correct (evidence outweighs the possibility of slander), he investigates the public official. Choice A fit this line of though (pre-thinking) aptly and thus I chose A.
GMAT Pill Representative
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2048
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 383

Kudos [?]: 1316 [0], given: 8

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 19:54
(A) is basically exploring the possibility that the "slanderous motivations outweigh the evidence"

So ppl accuse a public official- either there is evidence and public official is really corrupt. OR accuser is self-serving..doing it to slander the public official.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 152
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 24

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2013, 07:15
Tough one. The stimulus was brilliantly framed to make it difficult to understand. OE is pretty clear. Thanks.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10444
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2015, 17:12
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 55
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 02:48
Choice B, C and D are incorrect since these answer choices are irrelevant and used too strong words. Choice E is out because it is not necessary to ascertain that the public official has been slandered, it can be another reasons to stop investigating.
Choice A is correct since “I weigh the self-serving or slanderous motivations that person may have against the evidence that the public official is corrupt.”
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2091
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19
GMAT 1: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 124

Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2016, 06:04
macjas wrote:
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 - looks good
B. corruption never happens among public officials - too extreme
C. the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander - but the author says that if evidence outweighs, then he further investigates...not correct.
D. investigations into the corruption of public officials are usually fruitless - not relevant.
E. it is certain that the public official has been slandered - certain - way too extreme.

A looks good.
Re: Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt,   [#permalink] 24 Oct 2016, 06:04
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Public health official: Some researchers suspect that magnet 7 22 Jul 2013, 04:08
34 Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating 26 07 Jun 2013, 11:34
6 A public health official reported that 60 percent of the 9 07 Sep 2011, 10:55
An examination of corruption provides the basis for 6 23 Oct 2007, 18:08
Can someone tell me if this is correct? This statement was 5 31 Jul 2007, 04:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by