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 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
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 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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.
23 Apr 2021, 15:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
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:
50% (02:15) correct
50%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 405
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A poll was recently taken in which 500 executives of large companies were asked how often they had taken the initiative to set up a meeting with someone from their human resources department. The vast majority of executives, who received and answered this question through email, said that they had set up a meeting of this sort “between three and five” times in the last year. When this was checked, however, the average number was actually closer to only two. A more accurate estimate would have been possible if the executives were told that their answers would have been made available to all their employees.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
EMPOWERgmat CR Question Pack 2
Question 88: Executive HR Poll
48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window
Earn KUDOS! Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.
Scroll Down For Official Explanation
◀ Question 87
▶ Question 89
⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home
Question 88: Executive HR Poll
48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window
Earn KUDOS! Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.
Scroll Down For Official Explanation
◀ Question 87
▶ Question 89
⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home
26 Apr 2021, 19:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation:
A poll was recently taken in which 500 executives of large companies were asked how often they had taken the initiative to set up a meeting with someone from their human resources department. The vast majority of executives, who received and answered this question through email, said that they had set up a meeting of this sort “between three and five” times in the last year. When this was checked, however, the average number was actually closer to only two. A more accurate estimate would have been possible if the executives were told that their answers would have been made available to all their employees.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: If the executive were accountable through making their answers known to employees, their responses would have been more accurate.
Goal: Find the option that would provide the strongest support for the argument that executives would’ve answered more honestly if they knew their employees were going to see their responses.
Analysis:
General comments about strengtheners:
Broadly speaking, most arguments that deal with strengtheners have issues related to relevance, where the purported evidence or premises are not completely relevant to the conclusion or vice versa. Correct answer choices will correct this irrelevance.
Thinking about this visually, the correct answer will bring together the gap separating the premise(s) and conclusion, thereby strengthening the argument.
For strengtheners, there are two common ways to strengthen the connection between the premises and conclusion:
Shoot down counterexamples/objections: The correct answer choice will shoot down a possible objection which would have separated the premises and conclusion.
Clean up the argument: the correct answer choice will improve the connection between premises and conclusion. Depending on the argument being made, there are several ways to do this. For example, causal arguments will strengthen the causal connection. Arguments with a gap/mismatch between premises and conclusion will correct the mismatch.
Now that we understand what we need to do, let’s look at how this particular argument is structured:
Argument structure:
(P) = Premise/Evidence/Support (C) = Conclusion
P1: The majority of executives overreported how often they initiated meetings with HR
P2: (Assumption )
C: A more accurate estimate would have been possible if the executives were told that their answers would have been made available to all their employees.
The argument links two ideas: 1. the executives overreported how often they initiated meetings with HR and 2. the executives would not overreport if they were accountable. An assumption links these two ideas by assuming that the executives were somewhat deceptive. Presumably, the executives inflated their numbers to make themselves look better. If the eyes of other employees (like HR) were aware of how often the executives initiated HR meetings, the executive estimates would have been more accurate. Correct answer choices will point out this assumption. By doing so, the argument will be strengthened. Wrong will fail to strengthen the link between ideas 1 and 2.
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
Incorrect. The conclusion seeks to get a more accurate estimate, whereas answer choice A would yield a lower estimate. The key assumption that would make the conclusion follow from the premises is that the executives were dishonest, and that the conclusion would curtail this dishonesty.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
Incorrect. Answer choice B would not explain why making the estimates known to other employees would result in better estimates. If they believed that they were giving accurate estimates, then other employees’ knowledge of these estimates would not have altered their estimates.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
Correct. This answer choice states the assumption that was identified in the argument analysis above. It strengthens the link between the executive’s underreporting and the conclusion related to what would make the executives more accurate. If the executives are deceptive, then, the recommendation in the conclusion makes sense.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
Incorrect. The stimulus deals with the inflated estimates of how often the executives initiate meetings with HR. Answer choice D deals with HR initiating meetings. As such, answer choice D is irrelevant.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
Incorrect. The stimulus deals with the inflated estimates of how often the executives initiate meetings with HR. Answer choice E deals with what promotes more meetings. As such, answer choice E is irrelevant.
Key Takeaway:
Identify the assumption. For strengtheners, identifying the key assumption is often useful. The assumption often serves as a strengthener by connecting the premise(s) to the conclusion. In this question, the assumption that the executives were deceptive helps strengthen the link between the premise regarding executive overestimates and the conclusion regarding measures to correct these overestimates.
Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
A poll was recently taken in which 500 executives of large companies were asked how often they had taken the initiative to set up a meeting with someone from their human resources department. The vast majority of executives, who received and answered this question through email, said that they had set up a meeting of this sort “between three and five” times in the last year. When this was checked, however, the average number was actually closer to only two. A more accurate estimate would have been possible if the executives were told that their answers would have been made available to all their employees.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: If the executive were accountable through making their answers known to employees, their responses would have been more accurate.
Goal: Find the option that would provide the strongest support for the argument that executives would’ve answered more honestly if they knew their employees were going to see their responses.
Analysis:
General comments about strengtheners:
Broadly speaking, most arguments that deal with strengtheners have issues related to relevance, where the purported evidence or premises are not completely relevant to the conclusion or vice versa. Correct answer choices will correct this irrelevance.
Thinking about this visually, the correct answer will bring together the gap separating the premise(s) and conclusion, thereby strengthening the argument.
For strengtheners, there are two common ways to strengthen the connection between the premises and conclusion:
Shoot down counterexamples/objections: The correct answer choice will shoot down a possible objection which would have separated the premises and conclusion.
Clean up the argument: the correct answer choice will improve the connection between premises and conclusion. Depending on the argument being made, there are several ways to do this. For example, causal arguments will strengthen the causal connection. Arguments with a gap/mismatch between premises and conclusion will correct the mismatch.
Now that we understand what we need to do, let’s look at how this particular argument is structured:
Argument structure:
(P) = Premise/Evidence/Support (C) = Conclusion
P1: The majority of executives overreported how often they initiated meetings with HR
P2: (Assumption )
C: A more accurate estimate would have been possible if the executives were told that their answers would have been made available to all their employees.
The argument links two ideas: 1. the executives overreported how often they initiated meetings with HR and 2. the executives would not overreport if they were accountable. An assumption links these two ideas by assuming that the executives were somewhat deceptive. Presumably, the executives inflated their numbers to make themselves look better. If the eyes of other employees (like HR) were aware of how often the executives initiated HR meetings, the executive estimates would have been more accurate. Correct answer choices will point out this assumption. By doing so, the argument will be strengthened. Wrong will fail to strengthen the link between ideas 1 and 2.
A. If the executives had known that others would have seen their answers, they would have intentionally chosen a lower number than they believed was accurate.
Incorrect. The conclusion seeks to get a more accurate estimate, whereas answer choice A would yield a lower estimate. The key assumption that would make the conclusion follow from the premises is that the executives were dishonest, and that the conclusion would curtail this dishonesty.
B. The executives who were polled believed that the number of times they called for a meeting with someone from their human resources department was appropriate.
Incorrect. Answer choice B would not explain why making the estimates known to other employees would result in better estimates. If they believed that they were giving accurate estimates, then other employees’ knowledge of these estimates would not have altered their estimates.
C. The executives who were polled could have been more honest in answering the question.
Correct. This answer choice states the assumption that was identified in the argument analysis above. It strengthens the link between the executive’s underreporting and the conclusion related to what would make the executives more accurate. If the executives are deceptive, then, the recommendation in the conclusion makes sense.
D. Most of the meetings between executives of large companies and someone from their human resources staff take place at the request of the human resources department.
Incorrect. The stimulus deals with the inflated estimates of how often the executives initiate meetings with HR. Answer choice D deals with HR initiating meetings. As such, answer choice D is irrelevant.
E. Executives who have productive meetings with people from their human resources department tend to call for more meetings with people from that department.
Incorrect. The stimulus deals with the inflated estimates of how often the executives initiate meetings with HR. Answer choice E deals with what promotes more meetings. As such, answer choice E is irrelevant.
Key Takeaway:
Identify the assumption. For strengtheners, identifying the key assumption is often useful. The assumption often serves as a strengthener by connecting the premise(s) to the conclusion. In this question, the assumption that the executives were deceptive helps strengthen the link between the premise regarding executive overestimates and the conclusion regarding measures to correct these overestimates.
Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
17 Nov 2025, 20:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi EMPOWERgmatVerbal,
While I understand the reasoning that you've provided for both A and C, and I understand why I was wrong in selecting A, C's explanation doesn't help explain to me, unfortunately.
Shouldn't C somehow have enforced the link between making the answers seen to everyone AND being more honest? That's left on the reader to assume.
It could very well be that executives could have been more honest if they had known managers would see their response (or 100 other reasons).
Please let me know if it's not fair to expect explicit linkage between the two. Thanks
While I understand the reasoning that you've provided for both A and C, and I understand why I was wrong in selecting A, C's explanation doesn't help explain to me, unfortunately.
Shouldn't C somehow have enforced the link between making the answers seen to everyone AND being more honest? That's left on the reader to assume.
It could very well be that executives could have been more honest if they had known managers would see their response (or 100 other reasons).
Please let me know if it's not fair to expect explicit linkage between the two. Thanks
