It is currently 17 Mar 2018, 11:19

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Further evidence bearing on Jamison s activities must have

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1398
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Further evidence bearing on Jamison s activities must have [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 12:28
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:10) correct 45% (02:25) wrong based on 156 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?
(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year.
(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning.
(C) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten.
(D) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices.
(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 937
Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 16:53
1
KUDOS
"definitively established" is the keyword.
Last evidence Vs Today's (recent) evidence ---> this is the stimulus.

A, C, D and E - talk about old evidence Not today's (recent) evidence. Second all talk about probability - compared to sighting someone at a particular time (as in B) which is a "confirmed" proof.

she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock -----> Proof

Probabilities NOT proof--------->
A : could not have purchased
C : likely to have forgotten
D : not to have seen the cancellation notices
E : would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting

IMO : B
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 168

Show Tags

02 Aug 2010, 14:02
completely lost .........Went for A at last ....can't reason sorry .......
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1384

Show Tags

03 Aug 2010, 15:13
B it is.

agree with nusmavrik.

"established" is the keyword.

all other options except B are probabilities or talking about past.
Manager
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 51
Schools: LBS, Harvard, Booth, Stanford, ISB, NTU
WE 1: S/W Engineer

Show Tags

04 Aug 2010, 09:46
I tried some strategies mentioned in this forum, and I see that it is working big time!!! BTW, Answer is B :D
Retired Moderator
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 779
Location: London

Show Tags

09 Sep 2010, 00:49
1
KUDOS
good question !

I used the pattern ... <An event> , Conclusion X --> not(Conclusion X)
_________________
Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 306

Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 06:39
_________________

My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 320
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering

Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 06:57
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 8

Show Tags

01 Jan 2011, 14:20
I think there is another reason for B. In the question, there is a "if A then B; now NO B" structure. As we can see: " if we use previous evidence, then it is impossible to prove fraud; now we can prove fraud". This argument is parellel with choice B, in which it says: "if she takes usual train, then she is unable to come until this afternoon; now she comes before afternoon"

So B.
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 147

Show Tags

01 Jan 2011, 16:14
I have a general question regarding the questions posted in the 700-level forum. Who is actually deciding the level of the question,is it the poster or the moderator? Just concerned about those people who are practicing these questions thinking that these are 700-level questions,which may be TRUE.But if someone is not able to solve the question and posting it in this forum then it should alarm us.
Please don't feel offended by my post as I just want that nobody be misguided in any way.
Intern
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 13
Location: United States
Schools: Anderson
GMAT 1: 730 Q47 V42
GPA: 3.95
Re: Further evidence bearing on Jamison s activities must have [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2017, 08:14
noboru wrote:
Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?
(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year.
(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning.
(C) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten.
(D) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices.
(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting.

This is an old questiona nd I half guessed it to correct answer.

My reasoning was ordering the sequence leading to conclusion which has been "definitely established"
Any answer choices where this "definitely established" can be questioned were eliminated leaving two.
Among those two I zeroed on one that shows a conclusion drawn from 3rd party witness.
Problem is it took me 3 minutes to solve this which in real exam will be a bummer.

So gurus, is there any better method to solve this question under 2 minute mark ?
Re: Further evidence bearing on Jamison s activities must have   [#permalink] 16 Apr 2017, 08:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by