Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 05:02 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 05:02 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
18 Dec 2025, 05:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
A major asset management firm is considering divesting from companies that score poorly on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, under the belief that such companies pose long-term financial risks. The firm’s research indicates that ESG-aligned portfolios have, on average, outperformed traditional portfolios over the past five years. Therefore, the firm concludes that shifting to ESG-focused investments will likely improve long-term returns for its clients.
Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate in assessing the firm’s conclusion?
A. Whether the companies with low ESG scores operate in sectors that are currently under regulatory scrutiny or subject to rising compliance costs.
(This only explain about the risk but it doesn't explain if they outperformed because of ESG alignment) Wrong
B. Whether the ESG-aligned portfolios that outperformed had comparable levels of sector and regional diversification as traditional portfolios.
(If ESG aligned portfolios were not comparably diversified by sector or region, their outperformance could be due to diversification advantages and not due to ESG factors. It is helpful in evaluation) CORRECT
C. Whether the clients of the firm are primarily interested in short-term returns or long-term capital appreciation.
(Client preferences do not affect whether ESG investing improves returns) Wrong
D. Whether the firm’s research adequately excluded companies that made recent ESG improvements but had not yet seen changes in their ESG scores.
(This concerns accuracy of research classification, it does not address whether ESG caused better performance) Wrong
E. Whether companies with strong ESG scores are more likely to reinvest earnings into sustainability initiatives rather than dividend payouts.
(Only about reinvest or dividend payout. It is irrelevant to argument) Wrong
B
Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate in assessing the firm’s conclusion?
A. Whether the companies with low ESG scores operate in sectors that are currently under regulatory scrutiny or subject to rising compliance costs.
(This only explain about the risk but it doesn't explain if they outperformed because of ESG alignment) Wrong
B. Whether the ESG-aligned portfolios that outperformed had comparable levels of sector and regional diversification as traditional portfolios.
(If ESG aligned portfolios were not comparably diversified by sector or region, their outperformance could be due to diversification advantages and not due to ESG factors. It is helpful in evaluation) CORRECT
C. Whether the clients of the firm are primarily interested in short-term returns or long-term capital appreciation.
(Client preferences do not affect whether ESG investing improves returns) Wrong
D. Whether the firm’s research adequately excluded companies that made recent ESG improvements but had not yet seen changes in their ESG scores.
(This concerns accuracy of research classification, it does not address whether ESG caused better performance) Wrong
E. Whether companies with strong ESG scores are more likely to reinvest earnings into sustainability initiatives rather than dividend payouts.
(Only about reinvest or dividend payout. It is irrelevant to argument) Wrong
B
msignatius
18 Dec 2025, 05:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Complex economics, so the stem would be helped with some simplification at my end:
"A major asset management company may not continue to work with companies that don't present a high ESG score, as these companies may stop being profitable eventually. This is because the company has seen ESG-aligned companies outperform those who have not been ESG-aligned."
Then the conclusion: "Shifting to ESG-focused investments will improve long-term returns for its clients"
Dissecting the conclusion will help:
- Asset management companies have a role to play in seeking long-term returns for clients. This is evidenced by what asset management companies do - manage assets and investments.
- ESG-first companies will make better profits, and hence working with them will benefit the asset management firm greatly.
A lot of this, however, is implicit, and the right answer - among options through which we're looking to evaluate the viability of the conclusion - may help bridge the gap or highlight this implicitness. Here goes:
A: While trying to add caution to the wind regarding ESG investments, this isn't really presenting causation - or, we don't know if this scrutiny or increase in costs is enough to hamper the investment potential.
B: We're not really concerned with how diversified these ESG portfolios were in comparison to their traditional counterparts; more diversified ESG portfolios may lower risk, but is this enough to challenge long-term viability of investment into ESG firms? Not quite.
C: The length of returns aren't debated; the conclusion anyway talks about long-term returns, so sure, identifying whether the ESG firm is looking for short-term returns or not is viable, but not from the perspective of the conclusion.
D: Now this makes sense! If the firm has included a vast number of companies that despite making recent ESG improvements, haven't had an increase in the score - this negatively impacts their conclusion that shifting to an ESG approach will yield profits to the client - this is because this assertion is based on avoiding "companies who score poorly on ESG metrics", which improve with ESG initiatives. But if despite an increase in investment, companies haven't found an improvement in standings, or the benefit has not been derived - then that vastly impacts the strong correlation between ESG investment and score.
E: Whatever a company does with their earnings is out of the scope of this discussion as both elements - investing in sustainability initiatives or in dividend payouts - may be beneficial or not in different cases, and thus won't impact the result.
"A major asset management company may not continue to work with companies that don't present a high ESG score, as these companies may stop being profitable eventually. This is because the company has seen ESG-aligned companies outperform those who have not been ESG-aligned."
Then the conclusion: "Shifting to ESG-focused investments will improve long-term returns for its clients"
Dissecting the conclusion will help:
- Asset management companies have a role to play in seeking long-term returns for clients. This is evidenced by what asset management companies do - manage assets and investments.
- ESG-first companies will make better profits, and hence working with them will benefit the asset management firm greatly.
A lot of this, however, is implicit, and the right answer - among options through which we're looking to evaluate the viability of the conclusion - may help bridge the gap or highlight this implicitness. Here goes:
A: While trying to add caution to the wind regarding ESG investments, this isn't really presenting causation - or, we don't know if this scrutiny or increase in costs is enough to hamper the investment potential.
B: We're not really concerned with how diversified these ESG portfolios were in comparison to their traditional counterparts; more diversified ESG portfolios may lower risk, but is this enough to challenge long-term viability of investment into ESG firms? Not quite.
C: The length of returns aren't debated; the conclusion anyway talks about long-term returns, so sure, identifying whether the ESG firm is looking for short-term returns or not is viable, but not from the perspective of the conclusion.
D: Now this makes sense! If the firm has included a vast number of companies that despite making recent ESG improvements, haven't had an increase in the score - this negatively impacts their conclusion that shifting to an ESG approach will yield profits to the client - this is because this assertion is based on avoiding "companies who score poorly on ESG metrics", which improve with ESG initiatives. But if despite an increase in investment, companies haven't found an improvement in standings, or the benefit has not been derived - then that vastly impacts the strong correlation between ESG investment and score.
E: Whatever a company does with their earnings is out of the scope of this discussion as both elements - investing in sustainability initiatives or in dividend payouts - may be beneficial or not in different cases, and thus won't impact the result.
Bunuel
18 Dec 2025, 05:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
On analyzing the options one by one,
A: Talks about why low-ESG firms may be risky, but does not test whether ESG portfolios’ past outperformance was fairly measured → not most useful. Eliminate
B Checks whether ESG and traditional portfolios were equally diversified; without this, outperformance could be due to sector/region bias, not ESG → directly evaluates the conclusion. Keep
C: Client preferences do not affect whether ESG investing actually improves returns → irrelevant.Eliminate
D: Concerns ESG score classification accuracy, but does not address whether ESG portfolios truly outperform → less central. Eliminate
E: Dividend vs reinvestment choices do not explain whether ESG causes higher returns overall → peripheral. Eliminate
The correct answer is option B
A: Talks about why low-ESG firms may be risky, but does not test whether ESG portfolios’ past outperformance was fairly measured → not most useful. Eliminate
B Checks whether ESG and traditional portfolios were equally diversified; without this, outperformance could be due to sector/region bias, not ESG → directly evaluates the conclusion. Keep
C: Client preferences do not affect whether ESG investing actually improves returns → irrelevant.Eliminate
D: Concerns ESG score classification accuracy, but does not address whether ESG portfolios truly outperform → less central. Eliminate
E: Dividend vs reinvestment choices do not explain whether ESG causes higher returns overall → peripheral. Eliminate
The correct answer is option B
18 Dec 2025, 05:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion is ESG focused investment = higher long term returns
A - Low ESG companies under scrutiny and higher compliance cost would explain the reason for low performance, but it does not explain the higher potential for ESG focused companies, hence no
B - Emerging sector/region with ESG focus with initial high growth could flatline in future. Therefore, sectoral and regional diversity is important to provide stable returns in the portfolio which is very important matric to be examined. Best possible option.
C - We do not know the returns from low or non ESG compliant firms are higher or lower in short-term or what the client preference actually is, so no conclusion can be reached on this. Hence no
D - ESG improvement with or without score changes is not relevant to the returns. Hence no
E - Reinvestment or dividend payout does not specify whether the resultant returns would be higher or not. Hence no
Answer Option B
A - Low ESG companies under scrutiny and higher compliance cost would explain the reason for low performance, but it does not explain the higher potential for ESG focused companies, hence no
B - Emerging sector/region with ESG focus with initial high growth could flatline in future. Therefore, sectoral and regional diversity is important to provide stable returns in the portfolio which is very important matric to be examined. Best possible option.
C - We do not know the returns from low or non ESG compliant firms are higher or lower in short-term or what the client preference actually is, so no conclusion can be reached on this. Hence no
D - ESG improvement with or without score changes is not relevant to the returns. Hence no
E - Reinvestment or dividend payout does not specify whether the resultant returns would be higher or not. Hence no
Answer Option B
