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.
Jul 0911:00 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the M7 MBA Spotlight Series, featuring MIT Sloan School of Management! This video is part of GMAT Club’s exclusive MBA Spotlight event, where top business schools meet prospective applicants like you.- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! - Jul 10
11:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation. 
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
18 Jun 2025, 14:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
agrasan
Hi GMATNinja MartyMurray DmitryFarber ChiranjeevSingh
I have a doubt to understand part-1 of the question logically.
If we say A is sufficient for B then how can we say B is necessary for A which is same as A only if B? I understand mathematically how Venn diagram depicts this but hard to connect intuitively with a real life example.
Let's say, A = winning nobel prize, B = admission to Harvard
Winning a nobel prize is sufficient to get admit to Harvard, then how can I say Admission to Harvard is necessary to win a nobel prize?
Can you please explain what I am missing here?
Here's a way to that we can understand this type confusing use of a statement about a sufficient condition.I have a doubt to understand part-1 of the question logically.
If we say A is sufficient for B then how can we say B is necessary for A which is same as A only if B? I understand mathematically how Venn diagram depicts this but hard to connect intuitively with a real life example.
Let's say, A = winning nobel prize, B = admission to Harvard
Winning a nobel prize is sufficient to get admit to Harvard, then how can I say Admission to Harvard is necessary to win a nobel prize?
Can you please explain what I am missing here?
Let's say the following:
A is sufficient for B.
OK, that means that, every time A is present in a situation, B is also present.
So, what if B is not present? Then, A must not be present either.
Right?
So, even if B is not exactly a requirement for A, if B is not present, then we know that A is not present.
Here's a specific example:
Every student in the class who learns the multiplication tables receives a gold star.
Of course, receiving a gold star is not a requirement for learning multiplication tables.
At the same time, given that statement, we know that, if a student in the class has not received a gold star, that student has not learned the multiplication tables.
So, we can say, "Only if a student in the class has received a gold star has that student learned the multiplication tables."
Let's now consider the statement from the passage:
All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates.
We can summarize that statement as follows:
Every action permissible under the code of ethics is legal.
In that case, we know that if something is not legal, it is not permissible.
It's true that the statement from the passage does not clearly indicate that the company bases permissibility on legality.
At the same time, we can say that, in a sort of backhanded way, that statement indicates that "an action is permissible under the code of ethics only if it is legal."
18 Jun 2025, 21:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks MartyMurray, great explanation and I am good now to understand it logically.
It seems like it was a step further from the logic If Not B, then Not A (when we know that A is sufficient for B).
Let's say the following:
A is sufficient for B.
OK, that means that, every time A is present in a situation, B is also present.
So, what if B is not present? Then, A must not be present either.
Right?
So, even if B is not exactly a requirement for A, if B is not present, then we know that A is not present.
Here's a specific example:
Every student in the class who learns the multiplication tables receives a gold star.
Of course, receiving a gold star is not a requirement for learning multiplication tables.
At the same time, given that statement, we know that, if a student in the class has not received a gold star, that student has not learned the multiplication tables.
So, we can say, "Only if a student in the class has received a gold star has that student learned the multiplication tables."
Let's now consider the statement from the passage:
All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates.
We can summarize that statement as follows:
Every action permissible under the code of ethics is legal.
In that case, we know that if something is not legal, it is not permissible.
It's true that the statement from the passage does not clearly indicate that the company bases permissibility on legality.
At the same time, we can say that, in a sort of backhanded way, that statement indicates that "an action is permissible under the code of ethics only if it is legal."
It seems like it was a step further from the logic If Not B, then Not A (when we know that A is sufficient for B).
MartyMurray
agrasan
Hi GMATNinja MartyMurray DmitryFarber ChiranjeevSingh
I have a doubt to understand part-1 of the question logically.
If we say A is sufficient for B then how can we say B is necessary for A which is same as A only if B? I understand mathematically how Venn diagram depicts this but hard to connect intuitively with a real life example.
Let's say, A = winning nobel prize, B = admission to Harvard
Winning a nobel prize is sufficient to get admit to Harvard, then how can I say Admission to Harvard is necessary to win a nobel prize?
Can you please explain what I am missing here?
Here's a way to that we can understand this type confusing use of a statement about a sufficient condition.I have a doubt to understand part-1 of the question logically.
If we say A is sufficient for B then how can we say B is necessary for A which is same as A only if B? I understand mathematically how Venn diagram depicts this but hard to connect intuitively with a real life example.
Let's say, A = winning nobel prize, B = admission to Harvard
Winning a nobel prize is sufficient to get admit to Harvard, then how can I say Admission to Harvard is necessary to win a nobel prize?
Can you please explain what I am missing here?
Let's say the following:
A is sufficient for B.
OK, that means that, every time A is present in a situation, B is also present.
So, what if B is not present? Then, A must not be present either.
Right?
So, even if B is not exactly a requirement for A, if B is not present, then we know that A is not present.
Here's a specific example:
Every student in the class who learns the multiplication tables receives a gold star.
Of course, receiving a gold star is not a requirement for learning multiplication tables.
At the same time, given that statement, we know that, if a student in the class has not received a gold star, that student has not learned the multiplication tables.
So, we can say, "Only if a student in the class has received a gold star has that student learned the multiplication tables."
Let's now consider the statement from the passage:
All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates.
We can summarize that statement as follows:
Every action permissible under the code of ethics is legal.
In that case, we know that if something is not legal, it is not permissible.
It's true that the statement from the passage does not clearly indicate that the company bases permissibility on legality.
At the same time, we can say that, in a sort of backhanded way, that statement indicates that "an action is permissible under the code of ethics only if it is legal."
Moderator:
