Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Jul 0608:00 AM PDT
-05:00 PM PDT
Compete to win some amazing Prizes such as Admissions Consulting Packages, Courses, and more. This is your Best Opportunity to improve your GMAT Score! Register to Participate
Jul 1010:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jul 14
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
In this live AMA, Ruthvik shares how he scored a 745 on the GMAT and answers questions from students directly. From the mindset that kept him consistent to the way he approached mocks and managed test-day nerves.. 
Jul 1410:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
Get the score you deserve! Enroll for 6 months of access to over 400 hours of GMAT video lessons AND 715+ Score Guarantee
Jul 2806:00 PM EDT
-08:00 PM EDT
Elite 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 Tue/Thurs July 28 2026 - Oct. 1 2026, 6:00pm-8:00pm EST
16 Jan 2019, 08:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
64% (01:49) correct
36%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 886
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices. The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior. Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
(A) Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
(C) The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
(D) The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
(E) The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
(A) Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
(C) The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
(D) The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
(E) The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
KanishkM
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 755
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
Schools: DeGroote'21 Desautels '21 NUS '21
16 Jan 2019, 22:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Akela
So if we break the above argument in pieces, we realize the inline
1) Large company is convicted of ill practices.
2) They will still continue with those practices.
3) Conviction was worthwhile, as it provided people with valuable insights.
(A) Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
This doesn't sum up the intent of the argument.
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
Lets keep this one on hold for now(Since we had read the same lines in the argument)
(C) The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
This is not the main idea.(just part of the argument)
(D) The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
This one does sum up the whole argument .
(E) The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
Irrelevant
Lets go back to B
The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
Isnt this part too extreme, that is contradicting one of the premises.
Answer D
21 Jan 2019, 22:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices. The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior. Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.
Boil it down-
A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices-> Background information. There has been a conviction.
The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior-> Opposing point. Do not expect the conviction to change behavior.
Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. ->Turnaround word "still" which, when following an opposing point, almost always introduces evidence or the conclusion. We get another indicator word, "since," which tells us that what follows it is offered in support of what came before it. That makes the first part of this line a conclusion and the second part evidence.
After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.-> "After all" indicates a continuation, and since what came before it is a premise, we know this line to be a premise as well, making the first part of line 3 the main conclusion.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
(A) Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior. - Incorrect
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior. -incorrect; supports the main conclusion
(C) The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior. - Incorrect
(D) The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile. - Correct
(E) The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger. - Out of scope
Answer D
Boil it down-
A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices-> Background information. There has been a conviction.
The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior-> Opposing point. Do not expect the conviction to change behavior.
Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. ->Turnaround word "still" which, when following an opposing point, almost always introduces evidence or the conclusion. We get another indicator word, "since," which tells us that what follows it is offered in support of what came before it. That makes the first part of this line a conclusion and the second part evidence.
After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.-> "After all" indicates a continuation, and since what came before it is a premise, we know this line to be a premise as well, making the first part of line 3 the main conclusion.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
(A) Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior. - Incorrect
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior. -incorrect; supports the main conclusion
(C) The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior. - Incorrect
(D) The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile. - Correct
(E) The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger. - Out of scope
Answer D
