GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 07:58

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2018
Posts: 144
Location: India
A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2019, 02:28
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:50) correct 60% (02:10) wrong based on 149 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background check of a potential appointee to a prestigious Board of Directors. With 10 different Directors and oversight over a multi-billion dollar multinational conglomerate, the Board is widely regarded as one of the most well connected and influential Directorships. The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets. The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the client's rationale for not appointing the candidate?

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.

_________________
GOOD LUCK!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 May 2017
Posts: 25
Location: Slovakia (Slovak Republic)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28
GRE 1: Q166 V152
GPA: 3.7
Re: A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2019, 04:22
i am really wondering how C could be an answer. It does not have any clear sense to me and miss the logic.

I think that answer should be B in case it have to weaken the argument
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9706
Location: Pune, India
Re: A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2019, 05:46
1
UB001 wrote:
A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background check of a potential appointee to a prestigious Board of Directors. With 10 different Directors and oversight over a multi-billion dollar multinational conglomerate, the Board is widely regarded as one of the most well connected and influential Directorships. The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets. The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the client's rationale for not appointing the candidate?

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.


Though the quality of this question is suspect, here are my thoughts on it.

Two statements of interest:
The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets.
The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

From two speeding tickets, he gathered "exceedingly reckless". We need to weaken this.

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.
Sure, it is possible that a few speeding tickets are given out every day. But considering the huge population a county can have, it is possible that most people never get a ticket. So two speeding tickets could be reckless.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.
So residents on average do receive 1 ticket. This means it may be normal that rules are strict and people often end up getting a ticket. It does put into question "exceedingly reckless".

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2018
Posts: 144
Location: India
Re: A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2019, 05:53
PlatinumGMAT Official Explanation:

In this question, the evidence – while relevant – is not enough to back up the argument. Two speeding tickets over a lifetime do not overwhelmingly prove recklessness and warrant removal from the Board.

A. This speaks to the candidate's character, but it does not directly weaken the argument that he is reckless.

B. This is an appealing answer, because it suggests that speeding tickets are a common occurrence and thus bad evidence for unusual recklessness on the candidate's part. However, if one ticket is issued per day and it is a populous county, the candidate’s two tickets could still be far above norms. Because there is not enough information in this question, it does not weaken the argument most.

C. This shows clearly that speeding tickets are weak evidence for recklessness. If most residents receive one speeding ticket on average, and the candidate only had one more than this, he appears to be no more reckless than the average person.

D. This suggests that the candidate has positive qualities, but it is not clear which qualities the employee is praising. This does not necessarily undermine the argument that he is reckless.

E. Although the fact that the candidate was found not guilty may be positive, the fact that he was involved in such a lawsuit at all could speak poorly of him. There is not enough information in this choice to suggest one or the other.
_________________
GOOD LUCK!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Mar 2018
Posts: 51
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V36
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Consumer Products)
Re: A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2019, 04:21
UB001 wrote:
A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background check of a potential appointee to a prestigious Board of Directors. With 10 different Directors and oversight over a multi-billion dollar multinational conglomerate, the Board is widely regarded as one of the most well connected and influential Directorships. The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets. The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the client's rationale for not appointing the candidate?

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.


Doesn't option C means that the candidate was >50% more reckless than the average population (PS: average of 1 ST is for lifetime and the candidate has not completed his lifetime)
>50% sounds exceedingly reckless?
Pl suggest
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2019, 04:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background ch

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne