CR Smuggling : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 Feb 2017, 10:11

### 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

# CR Smuggling

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 13:01
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Another one
Attachments

CR15.jpg [ 46.63 KiB | Viewed 894 times ]

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 224
Location: Utrecht
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 13:13
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
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 893
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 13:21
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.
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 22:44
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.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2004, 18:22
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.
Director
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2004, 21:42
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)
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 964
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2004, 21:51
yep. D proposes valid criticism
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2004, 06:50
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.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2004, 10:34
OA is D Thanks all for nice explanation.
18 Sep 2004, 10:34
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
CR: 2 02 May 2008, 20:21
CR 10 04 Oct 2007, 11:00
CR 13 01 Oct 2007, 19:14
CR 17 08 Aug 2007, 05:20
A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country 6 11 Jul 2007, 10:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by