CR Smuggling

Question

Another one

Alex_NL · Answer

I think I will choose answer D.

In D it is mentioned that the inspector decided not to search some tourists, while the tourist knew themselves they were carrying contraband.
The inspector mentions that he could always know if someone is carrying contraband. Obviously not, because he will not inspect some tourists while the tourists know they carry contraband.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Alex

venksune · Answer

I would think E. Those carrying contraband knowingly may choose to deceive and be caught. However, those carrying contraband unwittingly may show no signs and the inspector can miss such people.

kv244 · Answer

i would choose D. the inspector is trying to prove that he always knows when someone is trying to cheat him... but if someone who is trying to cheat him (by wittingly carrying contraband) passes unstopped, then his accuracy in detecting intent isn't perfect.

dwivedys · Answer

Another vote for E folks. It alone exposes the logical flaw inherent in the inspectors argument. The argument - inspector can always TELL whoever is carrying contraband and TRYING to deceive him. However how about if someone is carrying contraband unwittingly. In this case there's no deliberate attempt to deceive and hence the inspector wouldn't sense it.

hardworker_indian · Answer

Fact: Guy points hand at some one and they turn up being bad guys, carrying contraband goods.
Conclusion: Guy is good in finding people who deceive.

The missing piece is, "What about people whom does not point hand at? Are they always good guys?"
If the answer is "Yes", then it makes sense to say he is good in finding cheaters.

This flaw is pointed in D.

(I am a little skeptical about the use of "could" in all four choices except C. Using "could" does not make a strong objection. It would have been better if it were a past-tense-fact)

dj · Answer

yep. D proposes valid criticism

dwivedys · Answer

Argument - the inspector, based on his 10 years experience, has always been able to catch those carrying contraband and trying to deceive him. One of the central pieces of his argument relies on the assumption that those carrying contraband knowingly try to deceive him and he catches them.

E exposes a possiblity that some people may unknowingly carry contraband and hence there would be no question of them trying to deceive. This exposes a LOGICAL FLAW in the inspector's argument that he can always tell those carrying contraband.

saurya_s · Answer

OA is D Thanks all for nice explanation.

CR Smuggling

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards