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.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
11 Apr 2019, 00:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
52% (02:37) correct
48%
(02:46)
wrong
based on 409
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
12 Apr 2019, 13:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
srtdhoni
This is a hard question I think. It took me 2:30 to get the answer.
My way is the following....the question can be broken down into
1st Premise - Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light
2nd Premise - previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud
3rd Premise Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established
A- Only follows first premise The other 2 premises are kind of backward
C- Does not match the argument at all
D- This was close but doesn't have the 3rd premise
E- 2nd premise is missing which should say something along the lines of no possibility
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.
P1- Must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today
P2- It is not possible to get to Nantes until this afternoon
P3- Established: In-fact she was there at 11
Hence B
