Official Explanation
STEP 1: ANALYZE THE INFORMATIONEmail #1—CEO to store manager- 3 robberies
- Assumes manager’s security measures had no effect/weren’t done.
- Problem: What to tell the insurance company?
Email #2—Store manager to CEO- After 1st robbery, moved inventory, cutting losses in 2nd robbery.
- After 2nd robbery, had alarm installed—but robber was fast.
- After 2nd robbery, moved more inventory, cutting losses in 3rd robbery.
Attachment to email 2—Value of stolen goods in 1st vs. 2nd robbery
- As manager claims, much less overall was stolen in 2nd robbery.
STEP 2: APPROACH STRATEGICALLY
1. If the manager’s estimates are correct and if the tripods stolen in the third robbery account for 15 percent of the value of the stolen inventory, then the value of the stolen tripods is closest to
The store manager’s email states that there was an estimated 40% reduction in losses from the second robbery to the third. The total losses of the second robbery were about $18,000, so the losses of the third robbery were about $18,000 × 60%, or about $11,000. Then 15% of that is about $1,650, which is closest to (C).
2. For each of the following statements, select True if the statement can be verified to be true assuming that the information in the emails (but not necessarily the attachment) is accurate. Otherwise, select False.
An alarm system was installed at the store in November.
The CEO’s message states that the first robbery was exactly seven months ago and that the second robbery happened 60 days later. The current day is April 10, so the first robbery happened around September 10 and the second on November 10. The store manager’s email states that the alarm was installed within a week of the second robbery, so there was indeed an alarm installed in November.
The answer is True.
Upon being reached by phone, the store manager can make it to the store in under five minutes.
According to the second email, the store manager missed the robber by 30 seconds. Since the robber was in and out in 3 minutes, the maximum time it could have taken for the store manager to reach the store was 3 minutes 30 seconds.
The answer is True.
The attachment contradicts the store manager.
The total losses of the first robbery were $58,194. The total losses of the second robbery were $17,507. This is a percent change of \(\frac{58,194-17,507}{58,194}\), or 69.9%, which confirms the store manager’s claim that the reduction in losses was “nearly 70 percent.”
The answer is False.
3. For each of the following statements, select Yes if the statement can be reasonably inferred from the emails and the attachment. Otherwise, select No.
The robbery could have been prevented if the store manager had installed shatterproof windows.
There’s no information in the tabs about how the robber broke into the store. Thus, there’s no way to tell whether shatterproof windows would have made any difference.
The answer is No.
The alarm company’s phone call to the police lasted less than 45 seconds.
The store manager’s email states that he or she missed the robber by 30 seconds. This means that the alarm company’s phone call to the police (whom they called first) lasted at least 30 seconds, but there’s no way to tell whether that call was longer or shorter than 45 seconds.
The answer is No.
The value of the lenses stolen in the third robbery is less than that of the second robbery.
According to the store manager, the total losses of the third robbery are 40% less than those of the second robbery. However, the store manager doesn’t say that the losses are proportional in all categories. It’s possible that decreases in losses for other goods compensated for an increase in losses for lenses.
The answer is No.