Last visit was: 19 Jul 2024, 04:19 It is currently 19 Jul 2024, 04:19
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2014
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [12]
Given Kudos: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GPA: 3.12
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 459
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2013
Posts: 43
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2018
Posts: 121
Own Kudos [?]: 1038 [1]
Given Kudos: 141
Location: Viet Nam
Send PM
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an [#permalink]
1
Kudos
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Keep a close eye on the details in this Assumption question. The conclusion says that Aingeru shouldn’t be accused of the theft of the pudding pop because Iskandar stole the ice cream sandwich, but what do those two things have to do with each other? Nothing, necessarily: Iskandar could’ve stolen the ice cream sandwich while Aingeru stole the pudding pop. So for Aingeru to be exonerated, we need Iskandar to have stolen both items, but none of our premises say anything to that effect. That means we must need a premise to supply that evidence, and (E) is the best option.
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1086
Own Kudos [?]: 2188 [1]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Mei’s pudding pop an [#permalink]
1
Kudos
This question is broken. The assumption should be "whoever took the ice-cream sandwich took the pudding pop" not the other way around.
VeritasPrepBrian pls respond

The argument is that since Iskandar admitted to taking the ice cream, they must apologize to Aingeru.
This should be based on the fact that whoever took the ice-cream sandwhich also took the pudding pop; thus, Aingeru is exonerated.

Based on the way E is written, the conclusion should be that "Aingeru" should be the accused
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17516
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Meis pudding pop an [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: After our extensive inquiry into the theft of Jou-Meis pudding pop an [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts