A recent study concluded that the employees most likely to embezzle

The argument does not specify that the ethics course should be taken from company C itself. Isn't B correct then?

What is this.... a 350 level question?
The obvious answer is D
Explaination :-
Employee with his own Company's Ethics training = Not a thief
Employee with his own Companies Share = Not a thief

A) Neither has his Company's share , Nor his company's Ethics training ===> Can be a thief
B) Neither has his Companies share , has different company Ethics training but not his companies Ethics training=== > Can be a thief
C) Has Other company's scare but not his Company's share, No info about ethics training => Can be a thief
D) Don't has his Company's share , BUT HAS HIS OWN COMPANIES EHTICS TRAINING ===> CANNOT BE A THIEF
E) Has Other company's share but not his Company's share, No info about company's Ethics training===> Can be a thief

I don't which level this question is but straight forward D is the answer. We have asked to find who is least involved in theft or disproportions of funds.
Options A, B, C and E are wrong choices which suggest these are bigger thief than the D is ... Answer choice is D.

Straight D.

".....employees most likely to embezzle are those who have not been trained in a company ethics course OR do not have a stake in the financial success of the company."
Thus the person who is least likely to embezzle is the one who has either trained in company's ethics course OR has a share in his company.

Hi experts,
Please help to explain reason why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks.

I'm not an expert, but I really hope you find this reasoning useful:

I'll go with option D.
The question stem says, that the ones who embezzle from Company C have not been trained in an ethics course provided by company C or does not own its stocks. The question now asks, out of the people listed in each of the options who is LEAST LIKELY to embezzle from Company C:

A) This employee wasn't trained in company C's ethics course, and does not own company C's shares. So there's a possibility that he/she can embezzle from company C because neither has he/she taken the ethics course, nor does the employee have any stocks at stake.

B) He/she has taken an ethics course outside the company, not particularly relevant with the stem, as it only talks about taking the course from company C.

C) This employee does not own Company C's stocks, so why would the employee even bother about not embezzling from the company? Clearly out.

D) This option mentions that the employee has taken an ethics course in company C(So there's a possibility that he/she will not embezzle from the company, which is what the question wants!!).

E) This employee doesn't own any stocks of company C, so why would the employee even bother about not embezzling from the company? Clearly out.

Consider giving kudos if this helps!!

Cheers,
PV66

Pre-thinking:

Two factors affect the likelihood of an employee embezzling from a compamny:

i) not trained in a company ethics course
ii) does not have a stake in the financial success of the company

We are asked to identify that employee who is least likely to embezzle from the company. Such an employee must, hence, either be trained in a company ethics course, or have a stake in the company's financial success, or both. In other words, (i), (ii) or both must not be satisfied.

Let us examine the answer options:

(A) An employee who was not trained in a company ethics course and owns shares of another company's stock. Both (i) and (ii) are satisfied. Eliminate.

(B) An employee who has taken an ethics course offered outside the company. (i) is satisfied (since the employee must be trained in a company ethics course) and there is no information about (ii). Eliminate.

(C) An employee who has a side business as a stock analyst, but does not own any of company C's stock. (ii) is satisfied and there is no information about (i). Eliminate.

(D) An employee who does not own any of company C's stock but was trained in company C's ethics course. (i) is not satisfied, (ii) is probably satisfied. This is the only answer option so far where even one of (i) and (ii) is not satisfied as is required. Hold on to this option for now.

(E) An employee who owns stock in many different companies, but not in company C. (ii) is satisfied and there is no information about (i). Eliminate.

Therefore, of the given options, option (D) provides the best example of an employee who is not likely to embezzle.

Hope this helps.

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.