GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 15 Aug 2018, 17:28

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1248
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 04:14
2
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:34) correct 36% (01:41) wrong based on 438 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of Ploutos National Bank, recently apprehended a ring of seven embezzlers from among the bank's employees. The bank management decided to call in the federal investigators when they were unable to account for millions of dollars missing in their budget for this year. All the funds those seven individuals embezzled have been returned to the bank, and that accounts for about two thirds of the total amount missing. All seven of the accused have plea-bargained to avoid trial and are now serving in prison on reduced sentences.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A) The Ploutos National Bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by Federal investigators.
B) In the past, no employee had ever embezzled funds from Ploutos National Bank
C) Federal investigators have the means at their disposal to detect any large illegal transfers of money.
D) The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained.
E) In initiating a federal investigation of their own company, the managers of Ploutos National Bank were subject to no fees from the federal government.

_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 173
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 04:33
Mr. Sergii

I didn't get this. What was wrong with D? It is simply a paraphrase of the last sentence. I was stuck with A & D. Conclusion is to be drawn from the given set of premises/facts/evidences. A touches the missing part of amount that bank didn't get from seven embezzlers. How to arrive at more suspect.

Where am I wrong in concept?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1162
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 11 Sep 2015, 03:32
Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of Ploutos National Bank, recently apprehended a ring of seven embezzlers from among the bank's employees. The bank management decided to call in the federal investigators when they were unable to account for millions of dollars missing in their budget for this year. All the funds those seven individuals embezzled have been returned to the bank, and that accounts for about two thirds of the total amount missing. All seven of the accused have plea-bargained to avoid trial and are now serving in prison on reduced sentences.

They recovered only 2/3 of missing amount. they still have a reason to suspect some more people since seven are serving sentences already.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A) The Ploutos National Bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by Federal investigators.
This is inline with our reasoning above.
B) In the past, no employee had ever embezzled funds from Ploutos National Bank(Past experience cannot be inferred from this argument.)
C) Federal investigators have the means at their disposal to detect any large illegal transfers of money.(This can be true but cannot be drawn from the existing info)
D) The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained.(This can be true but cannot be drawn from the existing info)
E) In initiating a federal investigation of their own company, the managers of Ploutos National Bank were subject to no fees from the federal government.(whether the managers are subjected fees or not cannot be concluded from the argument.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.


My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265


Originally posted by Nevernevergiveup on 10 Sep 2015, 09:35.
Last edited by Nevernevergiveup on 11 Sep 2015, 03:32, edited 1 time in total.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1248
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 10:30
sun01 wrote:
Mr. Sergii

I didn't get this. What was wrong with D? It is simply a paraphrase of the last sentence. I was stuck with A & D. Conclusion is to be drawn from the given set of premises/facts/evidences. A touches the missing part of amount that bank didn't get from seven embezzlers. How to arrive at more suspect.

Where am I wrong in concept?


Hello sun01.

These thieves make some bargain, return money, avoid trial and obtain freedom but how we can be assure that if they not return money they will be in prison? What if they will be justify during this trial? Sometimes weird things happens in the justice. Such scenarios has a very little chance but it still a chance and this is wrong for inference question.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 173
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 21:21
Mr. Sergii

I came across this question in Magoosh blog for Must be true/Conclusion type question

"As soon as the suspect ran out of the bank, he started shooting at the policemen standing on the corner. As he ran away, he kept firing back at the policemen. The policemen took cover and returned fire. One policemen hit the suspect just as he was about to get into a waiting car. As the police approached, the car sped away without the suspect, allowing the police to apprehend and arrest the suspect."

here is the best supported conclusion written in blog:

1. The police were firing in self-defense.

2. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have fled the scene in the car.

Incorrect Conclusions:

3. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have reached the car, escaped, and eluded arrest.


Furthermore the blog explains,

The story explicitly says that the suspect was hit “just as he was about to get into a waiting car“, so that strongly suggests that, if he had not been hit, he would have gotten into the car. As it is, the car apparently left the immediate scene without difficulty, so if the suspect had gotten into the car, he would have fled the scene —- (i) is another good conclusion. Notice the crucial difference between (3) above and (2). Whereas (2) makes the conservative assumption that the suspect merely would have fled the scene, i.e. left that particular location, (3) paints a much grander picture about the total escape he would have been able to make with this car.


Now come to this question on I was stumped

D. The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained

Now compare the option D of the question with type of correct choice (2.) given for Magoosh question blog discussed above. How to differentiate between two?

Please help me to make my concept clean and clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Empire of the Sun
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1248
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 22:28
sun01 wrote:
Now compare the option D of the question with type of correct choice (2.) given for Magoosh question blog discussed above. How to differentiate between two?

Please help me to make my concept clean and clear.[/b]



Hello sun01

If we want to make analogy between these two questions then D should be like this:
"The seven embezzlers would have trial if they had not plea-bargained."

In such form D would be correct.

But making next inference about prison is not correct because we don't know how this trial will end.

This situation is completely alike to question that you cite: We can infer that suspect would have fled in the car if he had not been hit but we can't infer that this car would have successfully escape.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 379
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2015, 14:16
3
sun01 wrote:
Mr. Sergii

I came across this question in Magoosh blog for Must be true/Conclusion type question

"As soon as the suspect ran out of the bank, he started shooting at the policemen standing on the corner. As he ran away, he kept firing back at the policemen. The policemen took cover and returned fire. One policemen hit the suspect just as he was about to get into a waiting car. As the police approached, the car sped away without the suspect, allowing the police to apprehend and arrest the suspect."

here is the best supported conclusion written in blog:

1. The police were firing in self-defense.

2. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have fled the scene in the car.

Incorrect Conclusions:

3. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have reached the car, escaped, and eluded arrest.


Furthermore the blog explains,

The story explicitly says that the suspect was hit “just as he was about to get into a waiting car“, so that strongly suggests that, if he had not been hit, he would have gotten into the car. As it is, the car apparently left the immediate scene without difficulty, so if the suspect had gotten into the car, he would have fled the scene —- (i) is another good conclusion. Notice the crucial difference between (3) above and (2). Whereas (2) makes the conservative assumption that the suspect merely would have fled the scene, i.e. left that particular location, (3) paints a much grander picture about the total escape he would have been able to make with this car.


Now come to this question on I was stumped

D. The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained

Now compare the option D of the question with type of correct choice (2.) given for Magoosh question blog discussed above. How to differentiate between two?

Please help me to make my concept clean and clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Empire of the Sun

Hi Sun01!
I also choose D but now i see why A is correct. The key word is "all the fund that were embezzled". If not all the funds were returned then we could say that criminals may still keep some money. But this is not true. Hence somebody else still has other money. Hope this is clear
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1854
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2017, 01:45
Konstantin1983 wrote:
sun01 wrote:
Mr. Sergii

I came across this question in Magoosh blog for Must be true/Conclusion type question

"As soon as the suspect ran out of the bank, he started shooting at the policemen standing on the corner. As he ran away, he kept firing back at the policemen. The policemen took cover and returned fire. One policemen hit the suspect just as he was about to get into a waiting car. As the police approached, the car sped away without the suspect, allowing the police to apprehend and arrest the suspect."

here is the best supported conclusion written in blog:

1. The police were firing in self-defense.

2. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have fled the scene in the car.

Incorrect Conclusions:

3. If the suspect had not been hit, he would have reached the car, escaped, and eluded arrest.


Furthermore the blog explains,

The story explicitly says that the suspect was hit “just as he was about to get into a waiting car“, so that strongly suggests that, if he had not been hit, he would have gotten into the car. As it is, the car apparently left the immediate scene without difficulty, so if the suspect had gotten into the car, he would have fled the scene —- (i) is another good conclusion. Notice the crucial difference between (3) above and (2). Whereas (2) makes the conservative assumption that the suspect merely would have fled the scene, i.e. left that particular location, (3) paints a much grander picture about the total escape he would have been able to make with this car.


Now come to this question on I was stumped

D. The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained

Now compare the option D of the question with type of correct choice (2.) given for Magoosh question blog discussed above. How to differentiate between two?

Please help me to make my concept clean and clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Empire of the Sun

Hi Sun01!
I also choose D but now i see why A is correct. The key word is "all the fund that were embezzled". If not all the funds were returned then we could say that criminals may still keep some money. But this is not true. Hence somebody else still has other money. Hope this is clear



I agree with you, the passage does not mention directly any reason why the thiefs have reduced sentences. In othe words, returning money may not have anything to do with a lenient sentence.
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 776
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2018, 18:58

Official Explanation:


The bank noticed that big bucks were missing, so they called in the feds. The feds apprehended seven embezzlers, and returning these fund accounts for 2/3 of the missing money. All seven of the embezzlers plea-bargained and consequently got shorter sentence than they would have received if tried and convicted. We don't know where that remaining 1/3 of the missing money went.

What can we conclude?

(A) is the credited answer. We don't know what became of that remaining 1/3 of the money --- we don't know, and presumably, the bank managers don't know either. Did other embezzlers take that extra missing money? We don't know for sure, but that's as likely a hypothesis as any. In that sense, bank managers certainly have reason to suspect more embezzlers.

(B) is absolutely wrong. We don't know this at all. All we have is information about this one grand event this year. We don't know anything about the past.

(C) is a good tempting answer, because we suspect that it's probably a true statement. Nevertheless, nothing in the prompt paragraph gives any specific support to this.

(D) is a tricky one. Plea bargaining is inherently a gamble. If my case goes to trial, then I may be convicted and get a long sentence, or I may be acquitted and walk away a free man. Instead, if I plea bargain, I avoid a trial entirely, and get a guaranteed shorter sentence. I trade the risk of a longer sentence for the certainty of a short sentence. By plea bargaining, the embezzlers definitely got a shorter sentence than they would have gotten if they had been tried and convicted. The trouble is: if their cases went to trial, anything could happen: there's no guarantee that, in a trial, they would be convicted. If they got a good lawyer and a clueless jury (which happens more than you would like to think!), then they might have been entirely acquitted. Therefore, we can't necessarily conclude, if they didn't plea bargain, that they absolutely would have gotten stiffer sentences.
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Best Gmat Resource:
GmatPrep CR|GmatPrep SC|GmatPrep RC

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2

Re: Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of &nbs [#permalink] 20 May 2018, 18:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.