It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 08:36

# Live Now:

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 302

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 09:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:38) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 8 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa.
Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

B.Sandra earns more commission than Lisa

C.Sandra earns more commission than Andrew

D.Sandra and Andrew earn the same amount of commission

E.Bill and Andrew earn the same amount of commission
OA later after discussion..

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 09:37
I'd write down everything with some pointers:

Original argument:
Premise 1. B > S
Premise 2. A > L
Conclusion. B > L

A. A > B - this does not invalidate the argument. You could have A > B > L, which would use up "A", Premise 2 and Conclusion.

B. S > L - this one is good too. Since we have B > S (Premise 1), adding S > L means that B > S > L, which ultimately leeds to the conclusion.

C. S > A - good as well. If B > S (from Premise 1) and S > A (from C) and A > L (Premise 2), you get that B > S > L, which again takes you to the conclusion.

D. S = A - works. It's basically the same as with C.

E. B = A - it's basically A all over again.

I'm getting that all of them are correct. I'm making a mistake somewhere, maybe someone else can help...

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 167

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 4

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 10:08
Original argument:
Premise 1. B > S
Premise 2. A > L
Conclusion.B > L

1. A > B - We can have A > B > S by this and Premise 2 says A > L. We cannot prove that B > L via this. Correct answer

2. S > L - From Premise 1 we know already know that B > S. So S > L makes argument logically correct

3. S > A - From Premise 2 we know A > L and from Premise 1 we know B > S. Therefore B > L makes the argument logically correct

4. S = A - From Premise 2 we know A > L. Therefore if S = A then we can say that S > L. Premise 1 says that B > S. Hence makes the argument logically correct

5. B = A - Premise 2 says A > L and if B = A we can say that B > L which makes the argument logically correct.

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 302

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 12:37
DanaJ wrote:
I'd write down everything with some pointers:

Original argument:
Premise 1. B > S
Premise 2. A > L
Conclusion. B > L must be B > A > L

A. A > B - this does not invalidate the argument. You could have A > B > L, which would use up "A", Premise 2 and Conclusion.

in ascending order
S < B
L < A (it follows that L < B) then definetly Bill must be earning more than Andrew, only then we can decide Bill also earns more than Lisa
so L < A < B

A. B < A this is false , as per our derived result

B. L < S , possible

C. A < S (doesnot violate S B) , possible

D S and A same amount (till within B) so possible

E B and A same amount possible, they are top two earners, so conflict

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 16:27
crejoc wrote:
Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa.
Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

B.Sandra earns more commission than Lisa

C.Sandra earns more commission than Andrew

D.Sandra and Andrew earn the same amount of commission

E.Bill and Andrew earn the same amount of commission
OA later after discussion..

A. andrew earning more than bill meaning bill and lisa earn less than andrew, doesnt say anything about bill and lisa

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 32

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 00:40
A. Inconclusive that B > L.

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 32

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 29

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 02:06
crejoc wrote:
Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since Andrew earns more commission than does Lisa, it follows that Bill earns more commission than does Lisa.
Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

A.Andrew earns more commission than Bill

OA later after discussion..

bill>sandra
andrew>lisa

if andrew>bill we do not know if bill and lisa get the same amount or lisa get higher amount therefore its our answer
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 29

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 302

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Re: Bill Sandra Andrew Lisa [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 07:07
OA: A

Kudos [?]: 587 [0], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2014, 02:45
1. B>S
2. A>L

is B>L ?

it says A>B, so we have two options

A>B>L
or
A>L>B

So, this option is insufficient to conclude the answer (whether B>L or L>B), that's what question asks. We have to choose one option that can't complete the logic.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

Bill earns more commission than does Sandra. But since   [#permalink] 18 Jul 2014, 02:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by