GMAT Club Around The World!!! Charities will soon start scrutinizing

Question

Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrongdoing. Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.

Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?

A. Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.
D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.

Happy New Year Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada
Guyana, Netherlands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten), Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Virgin Islands and Venezuela!

Dec 31 Event: GMAT Club Around The World  !  
  (38 new questions posted every  hour  time zone on Dec 31!)

https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=64804

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

Experts' Global Official Explanation

Mind-map:  Charities to scrutinize donations for financial wrongdoing  ten percent donors expected to be disqualified  one-third of donors with financial malpractice will not be identified  five percent of all donors will provide unethically sourced money

Missing-link:  Not needed

Expectation from the correct answer choice:  To be duly deducible from the information in the passage, without any assumption or extrapolation

A. Trap. The argument is concerned with charities’ scrutiny identifying donors with financial maleficence and not with incidents of financial maleficence in general; so, this answer choice cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

B. Correct.  The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations, or, in other words, in the amount of money available to charities, as the answer choice mentions. Because this answer choice is deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is correct.

C. The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations; this answer choice, suggesting “fluctuations” in funding, indicates possible increase or decrease, and can only be partially established; this answer choice can stay after the first glance but shall eventually make way for a better, stronger answer choice; we have a more convincing answer choice in B.

D. The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations; however, the argument makes no suggestions regarding the purpose of donations; so, this answer choice, suggesting that donations made with the sole purpose of benefitting the donor will become rarer, cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

E. Trap. The argument mentions charities’ scrutiny and its impact on “donors with financial malpractice” but makes no suggestion regarding the scrutiny’s impact on “potential first-time donors”; so, this answer choice, suggesting an impact, cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

B is the best choice.

100mitra · Answer

Correct Option A 
Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrong doing. 
Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, 
they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. 
Therefore,  about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money .

Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting 
the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?

A. Incidences of financial wrong doing are likely to rise by five percent  - Correct 
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease  - Wrong 
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range  - Wrong 
D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer  - Wrong 
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent  - Wrong

behlmanmeet · Answer

Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrongdoing. Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.

Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?

Solution:   We can take some numbers and verify the percentages but it's not required as we will soon find out from the answer options. Just keep in mind that 10% of prospective donors will be excluded.

A. Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.:  We cannot say that. We don't know about the rate or number of incidences of financial wrongdoing. We only know of all donors 10% who commit financial wrongdoing will be excluded but how many wrongdoers are there or what number is not of our concern.

B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.:  If the % or the number of prospective donors decreases, so will the total donation. Correct
 
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.:  We cannot say for sure. Even if the total donation is reduced, the funding for social initiatives by charities can be kept the same while reducing some other expense.

D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.:  What does benefit to donor mean, like tax benefit? We don't know. Nothing is mentioned in the passage regarding that.
 
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.:  Nothing of the sort is mentioned nor can we infer it.

abhishekujjawal · Answer

To identify the best-supported inference, let's break down the key points from the passage:

1. Charities will start scrutinizing major donors for signs of financial wrongdoing.
2. This process will disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors.
3. The screening will fail to identify one-third of donors who have committed financial maleficence.
4. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.

Now, let's evaluate each answer choice:

(A) **Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.**
- The passage does not provide information to support this inference. It discusses the screening process and its effectiveness, but not an increase in financial wrongdoing.

(B) **The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.**
- This is a reasonable inference. Since up to ten percent of prospective donors will be disqualified, the total amount of donations may decrease.

(C) **The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.**
- The passage does not provide information on how the range of funding for social initiatives might fluctuate. It only discusses the proportion of donors disqualified and the proportion of unethically sourced money.

(D) **Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.**
- The passage does not address the motivations behind donations. It focuses on the ethical sourcing of the donations.

(E) **Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.**
- There is no information in the passage about an increase in the number of potential first-time donors.

Given the information, the best-supported inference is:

**(B) The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.**

This inference is supported by the passage's statement that up to ten percent of prospective donors will be disqualified, suggesting a potential decrease in total donations.

vishuchiku · Answer

But it's about donors, how will decrease in unethical donors reduce the total money? Others can donate higher money to the charities

No where it's mentioned that the donation amount will stay the same

guddo · Answer

Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrongdoing. Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.
 
 Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?

The passage says the screening process will disqualify some prospective donors, possibly up to 10 percent.  The safest consequence  is that charities may receive less money, because some major donors who would otherwise have donated will be excluded. The passage does not support stronger claims about crime rates, donor motives, or future donor numbers.

(A) Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.

This is not supported. The passage says about five percent of actual donors may still provide unethically sourced money. It does not say financial wrongdoing itself will increase.

(B) The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.

This is correct. If the screening process disqualifies some prospective major donors, then charities are likely to have less donor money available than they would have had without the screening.

(C) The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.

This is not supported. The passage says nothing about fluctuation or variation in funding.

(D) Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.

This is not supported. The passage discusses financial wrongdoing, not whether donors donate for selfish reasons.

(E) Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.

This is not supported. The passage mentions disqualifying up to ten percent of prospective donors, not increasing first-time donors.

Answer: (B)

egmat · Answer

Hi vishuchiku,

You're right that, in real life, the remaining donors  could  choose to give more and make up the shortfall. But notice two things about how this question is framed, and the doubt clears up.

First, this is a "best supported" inference question, and choice B only says "likely to decrease" - not "will definitely decrease."  You don't need an airtight, guaranteed outcome. You need the outcome the passage makes  most reasonable . If you remove up to  ten percent  of all prospective donors, the natural default expectation is that less money comes in. That's exactly the kind of "likely" consequence B is claiming.

Second, the "others will donate more" idea is something you're adding from outside the passage.  Nothing in the stimulus says remaining donors will raise their gifts to compensate - that's an extra assumption. In CR inference questions, you judge only what the passage supports, and the passage gives you one clear directional fact: fewer accepted donors. So the supported direction is  down , and B captures it.

Your instinct isn't wrong about the world - it's just a possibility the passage never puts on the table, and B doesn't need to rule it out because B only claims a  likely  effect.

Turn one word and feel the difference:

- If B said "The amount of money available to charities  will  decrease" - now your objection bites, because that's an absolute claim the passage can't guarantee.
- With "is  likely  to decrease," it only needs to be the most reasonable expectation from " 10%  of donors disqualified" - which it is.

That gap between "likely" and "will" is the whole game here. Stay strict about what the passage actually states, and match it to how strong the answer choice's wording is.

Answer: B

GMAT Club Around The World!!! Charities will soon start scrutinizing

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

GMAT Club Around The World!!! Charities will soon start scrutinizing

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