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

It is currently 15 Jul 2018, 19:50

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

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a

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

Hide Tags

7 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 501
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2015, 07:22
7
30
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (01:38) correct 34% (02:00) wrong based on 1639 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

(A) An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.

(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.

(C) Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.

(D) The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.

(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.

Argument Construction

Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.

Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes?

The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.

(C) Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.

_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Posts: 11
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2015, 09:06
3
1
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.


Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A. A single incident can't be taken as an example
B. We have to focus, here we are dealing with criminals, not public!
C. Strengthens the argument given :)
D. It distracts by saying there are two types of criminals caught, followed by description of their crimes.
E. Again far away from the topic, mostly deals with public.
Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1888
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2016, 02:14
3
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.


Premise: Reducing the officers from traffic enforcement will be counterproductive because some serious crimes can be stopped before by the traffic police officers.
We need to strengthen this. Option C tells us that the people committing serious crimes pay no heed to traffic laws and thus can be nabbed by the officers. If the number of traffic police officers are reduced, then there are less chances that such people would be caught.
Option A just talks about violent confrontation, but it does not tell why the move of reducing officers will be counter productive.

Does this help?
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 45
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2016, 09:05
1
Conclusion: Reducing Traffic enforcement is counter productive.
Premise: Criminals tend to use cars when committing serious crimes.

Assumption: Criminals using cars can be quickly detected.

Something which supports this assumption will strengthen the arguments.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 91
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 450 Q27 V21
GPA: 3.47
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2016, 18:28
1
Here is the Official explanation.
Attachments

budget constraints.png
budget constraints.png [ 143.76 KiB | Viewed 12073 times ]


_________________

1) Kaplanprep 450 Q27 V21
2) Manhattan 530 Q35 V28
3) GmatPrep 450 Q33, V19
4) Veritas 460 Q31, V23
5) Veritas 440 Q 30, V21
6) Veritas 500 Q34, V 25
7) Gmat 420 Q27, V23
8) Veritas 520 Q36, V26 2/2
9) Veritas 540 Q37, V28 4/19
10)Manhattan 560 Q40, V28 4/28

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 392
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2016, 02:39
3
1
First , as for any CR problem lets break down the problem :

Conclusion : Shifting of Traffic officers to work on serious crimes would not prove fruitful.
Premise : Police force needs more officers to work on serious crimes and police officials from Traffic enforcement are being shifted for this cause. Why -> because traffic officials can catch Traffic violators and search for evidence of serious crimes in the car.

One should always pre-think some sort of answer before moving on to the answer choices.
In this case what can one pre-think ??
Pre-thinking - Evidence that shows that traffic police officers actually catch criminals who have committed serious crimes.

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. -> This if any weakens our conclusion as if traffic police officers risk violent confrontation then they actually would actually be discouraged to search vehicles.
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. -> This option choice does not affect our conclusion. It does not talk about serious crimes in any way.
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. -> Correct -> Because this actually gives evidence that Traffic police officials would actually search these cars which have serious crime offenders.
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. -> The question that we need to answer is that whether reassigning Traffic police officers to crime department would actually increase or decrease the number of criminals caught. This option choice does not help answer that in any way and hence is incorrect.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. -> This option choice again does not help answer the conclusion in any way as explained in option choice D.

Hope this helps !!!!
Expert Post
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 392
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2016, 02:47
nycgirl212 wrote:
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.

I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.


We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes.
Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders.
This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.

Hope this helps !!!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 35
Location: Germany
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.1
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2016, 06:27
guys, I still don't get why choice D is wrong. Doen't the answer imply that more offenders of serious crimes will be caught if police officials will not be reassigned? Can someone please help me out,this question is pretty frustrating.
_________________

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." Bruce Lee

"I hated every minute of training, but I said, "Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion."" Muhammad Ali

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 105
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2016, 11:32
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
nycgirl212 wrote:
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.

I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.


We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes.
Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders.
This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.

Hope this helps !!!


but doesn't D say that since the group of serious criminals is different between the ones that are driving and not driving, clearly eliminating traffic cops would create a situation where those serious criminals that are driving are not caught - thus, there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned....
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.42
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2016, 07:41
nycgirl212 wrote:
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
nycgirl212 wrote:
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.

I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.


We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes.
Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders.
This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.

Hope this helps !!!


but doesn't D say that since the group of serious criminals is different between the ones that are driving and not driving, clearly eliminating traffic cops would create a situation where those serious criminals that are driving are not caught - thus, there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned....



The flaw in your reasoning is this.. You're not considering the fact that the officers reassigned could catch more number of criminals than the number of criminals who would go free (if the officers are reassigned). Therefore we can not definitely say 'there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned'.
_________________

Best GMAT Resources downloads-
http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-of-the-best-gmat-resources-167295.html#p1329720

May we all emerge victorious :)

Mannheim Thread Master
User avatar
S
Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 257
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2017, 22:33
C is the correct choice - This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop to search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.
_________________

2017-2018 MBA Deadlines

Threadmaster for B-school Discussions
Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 673
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2017, 10:22
C states clearly that the criminals committing serious crimes will ignore the traffic rules and get caught.
So strengthening the Stimulus that states moving people from traffic into the crime branch is not a viable option.

hence, Answer choice C strengthens.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 16:49
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.





A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. Incorrect - Shell game answer
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. Incorrect - Out of scope
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. Correct - When cause (crime) occurs, effect (traffic rule violation) occurs
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. Incorrect - Opposite Ans.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. Incorrect - Out of scope
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Dec 2016
Posts: 6
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Dec 2017, 05:19
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.


Reducing traffic enforcement to focus on solving serious crimes would be counterproductive because:-
Thinking: We need to find out why is it not a good idea to move Police Officers from Traffic Dept to Serious Crimes.
Option: Number of offenders committing serious crimes caught would reduce as a result of above mentioned action
Evidence1: Criminals engaging in SC tend to use Cars
Evidence2: Officers which stop cars can find evidence related to SC

A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
Irrelevant

B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
Irrelevant

C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
Strengthens Evidence 1

D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
2 groups
g1: SC Offenders caught due to traffic violations
g2: SC Offenders caught due to increased capacity of serious crimes unit
G2 does not include those caught due to traffic violations. But this option does not tell us whether absolute number of offenders committing serious crimes reduces or increases.

E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Different target group
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 42
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2017, 00:50
mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Posts: 20
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2018, 08:46
siddyj94 wrote:
mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:


Hi siddy,

I'll give it a try :-)

I broke down the sentence (option C) into three parts-

1. Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes = People committing serious crimes
2. are often in committing such crimes = when they are committing these serious crimes
3. unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law = they do not observe the traffic laws (so they break traffic laws too) and think that breaking traffic laws is a lesser limiting factor than committing serious crimes.

Combining the meaning of the three parts- When people commit serious crimes, they also break traffic laws and they think that breaking traffic laws is a lesser constraint than committing serious crimes.

I hope this helps.

Aiena.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 135
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
CAT Tests
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2018, 05:51
Conclusion: Reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because criminals often use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes and the presence of the officials can make a significant difference.

Any idea that might go against the notion of the conclusion can be eliminated. Also, we have to protect the assumption that this argument has. The assumption is that the traffic police is capable of identifying those criminals and is willing to take action.

With this idea A can be eliminated because if the officer risks the violent confrontation he may be discouraged to take such action. That means there is still a lingering question of his capability and willingness to take action.
B talks about public, which we are not interested in.
D is out of scope because it doesn’t help in reinforcing the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help.
E This options weaken the argument by saying that traffic police may not be needed at those places.

C is our answer. This strengthens the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because if these offenders of serious crimes consider traffic law as lesser constraints, they will be committing more such crimes of breaking the traffic laws and hence the traffic police will be needed at the time of the crime to catch them red handed.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 101
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: 311 Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2018, 06:25
This is an awesome question. The argument would work only when the people who commit serious crimes make traffic violations and get caught by the traffic cops. Otherwise these people go unnoticed by traffic cops then reassigning cops to a different job will be a good option. The only option that supports this narrative is option C. Hence the right answer.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 573
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2018, 22:55
We need to look for an answer that is connecting traffic violation and serious crimes. remember "the italian job 2003". if a traffic cop would have present at all those stops, all those crimes would not have been committed. but its a movie, any thing can happen. Point is that many people will think about committing a crime if traffic policeman is standing at every stop. option C is on same lines.
Quote:
(C) Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.

_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Best Gmat Resource:
GmatPrep CR|GmatPrep SC|GmatPrep RC

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Posts: 121
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2018, 03:55
I did not get the meaning of correct answer. Any one pls explain what does this mean:
c. Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.

_________________

--If you like my post pls give kudos

Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a   [#permalink] 19 May 2018, 03:55

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.