Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
22 May 2012, 00:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
43% (02:07) correct
57%
(02:09)
wrong
based on 716
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corp as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Thus it is likely the the embezzler is one of the actuaries.
Each of the following weakens the the detective's argument EXCEPT:
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants.
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ access to internal financial record.
C. XYZ employs 8 accountants whereas it has only 2 actuaries on it's staff.
D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement.
E. Certain security measures at XYZ made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants
Each of the following weakens the the detective's argument EXCEPT:
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants.
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ access to internal financial record.
C. XYZ employs 8 accountants whereas it has only 2 actuaries on it's staff.
D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement.
E. Certain security measures at XYZ made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants
22 May 2012, 22:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. Weakens the arguement
B. Accountants are considered insiders who have access to financial records whereas Actuaries are considered outsiders - weakens the arguement
C.8 accountants, 2 actuaries - Numbers dont necessarily mean that 2 Actuaries cannot commit the crime. - Doubtful option
D. Neutral stand - Does not qualify to have a positive or negative stand
E. Weakens the arguement.
Can be between C and D.
B. Accountants are considered insiders who have access to financial records whereas Actuaries are considered outsiders - weakens the arguement
C.8 accountants, 2 actuaries - Numbers dont necessarily mean that 2 Actuaries cannot commit the crime. - Doubtful option
D. Neutral stand - Does not qualify to have a positive or negative stand
E. Weakens the arguement.
Can be between C and D.
28 Aug 2017, 02:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: One of the actuaries is embezzler.
To weaken we need to show that actuaries are not embezzler.
This is an EXCEPTION question. So, we need to find out one option, which does not weaken the conclusion.
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, actuaries may not be embezzler
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ access to internal financial record. Third party may embezzle. So, actuaries may no be embezzler
C. XYZ employs 8 accountants whereas it has only 2 actuaries on it's staff. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, same as A.
D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement. Nothing is said about the probability of individual profession. It does not say whether actuaries are embezzler. So, no impact on the conclusion. Correct answer.
E. Certain security measures at XYZ made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants) and same as A
To weaken we need to show that actuaries are not embezzler.
This is an EXCEPTION question. So, we need to find out one option, which does not weaken the conclusion.
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, actuaries may not be embezzler
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ access to internal financial record. Third party may embezzle. So, actuaries may no be embezzler
C. XYZ employs 8 accountants whereas it has only 2 actuaries on it's staff. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, same as A.
D. An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement. Nothing is said about the probability of individual profession. It does not say whether actuaries are embezzler. So, no impact on the conclusion. Correct answer.
E. Certain security measures at XYZ made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants) and same as A
