Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code

Question

Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates. Furthermore, regardless of whether it has been determined if an action is legal, it is always permissible to ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics.

Statements: Without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics ___1___ it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Furthermore, one is permitted to ask the ethics board to review an action for conformity to the code of ethics ___2___ the legality of the action has been established.

Select for 1 and for 2 the two different options that complete the statements so that they most accurately paraphrase the Ethics board member's assertions. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 700271

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

All, when, whenever translate to "if". Given: If allowed under code, it is legal. This is same as: Only if legal, then allowed under code. Without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics ___1___ it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Hence we will put "only if" here. Only if it is legal, then permissible under code. Works. ANSWER 1 - Only if Given: regardless of whether it has been determined if an action is legal, it is always permissible to ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics. Furthermore, one is permitted to ask the ethics board to review an action for conformity to the code of ethics ___2___ the legality of the action has been established. In either case, one is allowed to ask to review so here we will have "whether or not". ANSWER 2 - whether or not Conditionals are discussed in these videos in detail: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8 https://youtu.be/BW8Ijrhjjq8 https://youtu.be/yQYkL1DSslA

Nsp10 · Answer

If x is a square, then x is a rectangle,
or we can say
squares are rectangles or
All squares are rectangles 
if A(x)--->B(x),
here we are witnessing conditional statements i.e,
Being a square is  sufficient condition  to conclude that x is a rectangle,
but if x is a rectangle we can not surely say that it is a square (This counts as a  necessary condition ).

Furthremore 
 only if  is categorized as necessary condition,
so for the above statement we can say:
x is a square only if it is a rectangle.

Now coming to the questions and after analyzing the options we can say there is conditional reasoning involved.
we can see the argument stating a condition here:
All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal.
so we can write it as 
Permissible Actions-->Legal
so being legal is a necessary condition here hence we can say 
An action is permissible under the code of ethics ___Only if___ it is legal.

chetan2u · Answer

Let us break down the statement:-

Ethics board member:  All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics  are also  legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates. 
 So,  A  are  B  or If  A  then  B .

Furthermore, regardless of whether it has been determined  if an action is legal , it is always permissible to  ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics. 
  D  is not dependent on  C .

Statements: Without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics ___1___ it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Furthermore, one is permitted to ask the ethics board to review an action for conformity to the code of ethics ___2___ the legality of the action has been established.

Let us simplify in terms of A, B, C and D.

Without exception A __ B. Furthermore D __ C.

Easier of the two blanks is D __ C, as D is not dependent on C => Furthermore, D  whether or not  C.

Now, let us see blank 1.
If A then B means any of the two
a) If not B, then not A. 
b) A only if B

So blank 1 is ‘only if’

The question can be done through Venn diagram too and I’ll be attaching a video on the same.
Edit - 
Added the video with certain concepts on Venn Diagram
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IwwSf5AByg

ckavya2691 · Answer

How to determine when to use "if" and "if and only if"? For me, it is not making much of a difference between these two.

chetan2u · Answer

The two options are ‘If’ and ‘Only if’.
Only if can replace THEN in a If Then sentence.

If A then B can be written as A only if B

mayankdgmat · Answer

Attaching conditional keywords from powerscore CR, which may help https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=81790 GMAT-Club-Forum-2ddstb5z.png

Gemmie · Answer

1. All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates.

=> Without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics only if it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates.

"Only if" indicates a strict conditional relationship where the action is permissible under the code of ethics exclusively when it is legal in all jurisdictions.

2. Regardless of whether it has been determined if an action is legal, it is always permissible to ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics.

=> Furthermore, one is permitted to ask the ethics board to review an action for conformity to the code of ethics whether or not the legality of the action has been established.

"Whether or not" means that the condition being considered does not affect the permission to ask for a review.2.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-rw4dw9lz.png [ 53.92 KiB | Viewed 6219 times ]

nisen20 · Answer

need native speakers' confirmation about whether only if is more appropriate than if in this sentence
 
for the phrase  without exception  here already emphasizing a correlation between permissible actions and legal actions, using  only if , also suggesting one category falls within another, could be redundant.

Adarsh_24 · Answer

Official explanation:

The ethics board member’s first sentence states that for all actions, if that action is permissible under the code of ethics, then it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Since “for all actions” means without exception (when applied to actions), and a statement of the form “if P then Q” is logically equivalent to “P only if Q”, it follows that the ethics board member’s first sentence is logically equivalent to saying that without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics  only if  it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. 
 To see that each of the other options gives a less accurate paraphrase, let P and Q represent the assertions as suggested above. Thus, the ethics board member’s first sentence is logically equivalent to “for all actions, if P then Q”. The selection  if  gives a statement logically equivalent to “for all actions, if Q then P” (not a paraphrase), the selection  unless  gives a statement logically equivalent to “for all actions, if not-Q then P” (not a paraphrase), the selection  whether or not  gives a statement logically equivalent to “for all actions, P if and only if Q” (not a paraphrase), and the selection  or  gives a statement logically equivalent to “for all actions, P or Q” (not a paraphrase). 
  The correct answer is  only if .

MalachiKeti · Answer

Understanding of conditionals is key here!
Dont proceed if you dont get it

If (A) then (B)
A is sufficient for B to happen
If <permissible under code of ethics> then legal

If a person says hey walking is permissible under code of ethics we can take for granted that it is legal. In other words, we can take for granted that walking is legal. Or anything that is permissible under law is guaranteed to be legal.
Hence permissible under code of ethics is sufficient enough to for an action to be legal here.

Only if <it is legal>, it is <permissible under code of ethics>.
It simply means illegal is not permissible under code of ethics. A legal activity may or may not be under code of ethics - just imagine there can be 10k legal activities, do all of it have to be listed under code of ethics? No!
Hence any action being legal is not guaranteed to be under code of ethics but it's a necessary condition aka one important component/criteria/parameter for it being in the code of ethics.

Use this and plug in the options.

GMATinsight · Answer

Answer: Options B | D Please check the video solution for step-by-step approach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlfgydpVo1w Please Like and Subscribe to YouTube channel if you like the video and access 1100+ more FREE videos . Every subscription matters!!! If you like to subscribe to modular courses on Quant and DI then please visit the following link: https://gmatinsight.com/gmat-2/

SudsMeister · Answer

Choosing between IF and ONLY IF seems to be the major trap in this question.

Question's stem says:  All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal . But are all legal actions also ethical? That's not true.
We can summarise this as: All actions that are ethical, are also legal. Can be rewritten as:  If an action is ethical, it is legal. 
This means,  ethical actions must be legal.

Let's try both the answers in (1) and see what we get.

On using  if,  we get:  An action is ethical if it is legal . This is same as saying:  If an action is legal, it is ethical.

Let's take an example:
 A will study if A fails . It can be rewritten as:  If A fails, A will study. 
In this sentence, we can deduce that A failing leads to A studying.
The actual statement means:  Legal actions must be ethical . This is opposite to what the stem says:  If an action is ethical, it is legal = ethical actions must be legal.

On using  only if,  we get:  An action is ethical only if it is legal.

Example:  A will study only if A fails. 
In this sentence, say A fails. Can we 100% say that A will study? We cannot.
But, say A will study. Can we 100% say that A has failed? We can. So, the example basically means: If A will study, then A must have failed.
The actual statement means:  Ethical actions must be legal.  This matches our stem.

Correct:  ONLY IF.

Rules to remember:
A if B = If B, then A = If B true, A must be true = If A  not  true, B must  not  be true.
A only if B = If A, then B = If A true, B must be true = If B  not  true, A must  not  be true.

To elaborate:
Both   A only if B   and   if A then B   expressions mean that B is a necessary condition (with respect to A), or equivalently that A is a sufficient condition (with respect to B). 
The expression "if A then B" stresses the sufficiency of A while the expression "A only if B" stresses the necessity of B, in the following sense: It says that A holds true only if B does (which is the same as if A is true, B must be true).

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB

I saw your response but am still not very clear with the fundamental logic of second equation  (A only if B) , would be very helpful if you could provide a simple example so I become crystal clear with the help of logic and not rules.

You wrote: 
  Given: If allowed under code, it is legal. 
This is same as:
Only if legal, then allowed under code.

Given: If A, then B..where A is  "allowed under code" , B is  "it is legal"

My question is:  how can we write   Only if legal, then allowed under code   which is "A only if B", this means that B is a necessary condition for A to happen. I don't understand how can we derive this as originally we are only given  A is a sufficient condition for B to happen .

Please help me clear this doubt, I even watched your 3 videos on conditionals but still not crystal clear.

SudsMeister · Answer

I had a similar doubt like yours, what helped me was imagining the situation in a Venn diagram format.

If an action is ethical, then it is legal = If A, then B : when we make a Venn diagram for this it will have a bigger circle B and inside it a smaller circle A.
This represents all actions that if ethical are also legal. An action inside circle A, is always inside circle B.

Now, think of the Venn diagram for A only if B. An action is ethical only if it is legal. So, for any action to be inside circle A (ethical), it must also be inside circle B (legal). This is the same as the previous diagram, where B is the bigger circle and inside it is the smaller circle A.

A being sufficient for B = A is enough to make B happen = whenever A happens, B must happen = B's happening is necessary for A to happen = B is necessary for A.

As a rule: A being sufficient for B = B being necessary for A.
A only if B = If A, then B = If not B, then not A = A is sufficient for B = B is necessary for A.

A, if B = if B, then A = If not A, then not B = B is sufficient for A = A is necessary for B.

A, unless B = if not B, then A = if not A, then B.

KarishmaB · Answer

A is sufficient for B IMPLIES B is necessary for A. They are just 2 ways to represent the same thing I have shown it in this example using Venn diagrams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfRb_2IaBJw

agrasan · Answer

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?

SudsMeister · Answer

My understanding of the example you stated:

If someone wins a Nobel, they will be admitted to Harvard. So, Nobel winner is the small circle within the bigger circle Admission to Harvard.

Winning a Nobel is sufficient to get into Harvard. By that logic - all Nobel winners will always be admitted into Harvard (assuming they apply).

So, admission to Harvard (or basically ability to get into Harvard) is necessary for being able to win a Nobel prize. Because anyone who wins a Nobel will always be qualified enough to get into Harvard.

agrasan · Answer

Thanks  SudsMeister 
I still don't understand the highlighted line.
  "So, admission to Harvard (or basically ability to get into Harvard) is necessary for being able to win a Nobel prize."

SudsMeister · Answer

Taking a different example might make it clearer:

If I study, I will pass. Studying is sufficient for passing. Passing is a necessary outcome of studying. Studying is the smaller circle inside the larger circle passing.
Basically as per Venn diagram - studying lies within passing. So for all outcomes where studying is true, passing will also be true.
So, passing is a necessary outcome when someone has studied (as all people who have studied will pass).

Reusing this same logic thread to your example:
Nobel prize winning lies within Harvard admission. So for all outcomes where Nobel winning is true, Harvard admission will also be true.
So, Harvard admission is a necessary outcome when someone wins a Nobel prize (as all people who have won a Nobel will get admitted into Harvard).

Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code

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

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code

Prep Toolkit

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