Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 15:36 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 15:36
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
ybb1234
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2025
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 42
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Is this question/solution flawed 23 Jul 2025, 14:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
[color=#3c3737]Greetings,

I have found the solution and its respective reasoning to be flawed, it also does not follow the argument evaluation 'reasoning section'. The question states that only sampling 10% of the population is not enough and some illegal mills may go 10 years without inspection, thus undermines the claim from Flyna, that their wood supply obtained is 'legally justified'. However, legally justified if taken by face value means they did not break any law, or if we dive deeper, in terms of corporate practices, whether they are dealing in good faith. My argument is that random sampling of 10% of the total population per year is statistically sound, in addition, we do not know how long this inspection has been going on for, it can be a 100 years, or the first; but the provided solution seems to assume that this form of inspection is new and there is a high chance of a 'high number' of existing illegal mills, significant enough to challenge the integrity or legality of this operation. I seem to be jumping all over the place. Thus I am here seeking guidance on questions in this manner, what level of assumptions we should make in context, for example, should we make assumptions to push the question forward (like the solution is making) or only neutral assumptions. If this helps, I chose A. Many thanks and I wish 800 for all of us.



Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna’s furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X’s lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna’s claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna’s claim?[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Only about one-third of Flyna’s inspectors were hired from outside the company.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Country X’s government recently reduced its subsidies for lumber production.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Flyna has had to pay higher than expected salaries to attract qualified inspectors.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    The proportion of Country X’s lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna’s staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Illegal logging costs Country X’s government a significant amount in lost revenue each year.    [/color]

[color=#3c3737]Argument Evaluation[/color]
[color=#3c3737]Situation[/color][color=#3c3737]The Flyna Company sells furniture mostly made in Country X from local wood. Illegal logging is widespread in Country X. Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. Specialized staff make surprise visits to Country X mills, inspect documentation to ensure that the wood supply has a legal origin, and certify mills as approved sources for legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. According to the argument, Flyna’s claim that its wood supply is legally obtained is justified.[/color]
[color=#3c3737]Reasoning[/color][color=#3c3737]What additional information would, if true, most undermine the justification for Flyna’s claim that its Country X wood is legally obtained? Clearly, much depends on the thoroughness of the certification scheme. For example, the staff auditing the mills would need to be qualified for the job and meticulous in meeting their responsibilities. The auditing visits would need to be frequent enough, and not predictable by mill management. Flyna would need to be genuinely committed to ensuring legality of wood sources; it would need to monitor its staff to ensure that they were doing their jobs effectively.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]A. This suggests that Flyna could make good judgments as to the competence and trustworthiness of most of the inspectors hired to certify lumber mills.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]B. This could provide a perverse incentive to loggers to violate legal restrictions on logging. However, this would not undercut Flyna’s justification for its claim that its system ensures that all its lumber is legally sourced.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]C. This has no bearing on whether Flyna’s certification system will be effective in guaranteeing that Flyna’s lumber is legally sourced. We are not told, for example, that Flyna has been unable to find enough qualified inspectors for the certification system to be effective.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]D. Correct. This means that 90 percent of Country X’s certified lumber mills are not inspected in any particular year. Moreover, since the selection of the 10 percent of lumber mills to be inspected in a given year is random, some lumber mills might go for much longer than ten years without inspection; during this period, many of those mills might fall below certification standards and even use lumber illegally obtained.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]E. This indicates that a significant amount of illegal logging occurs in Country X; this suggests that it is possible that some illegally sourced wood could find its way to lumber mills that Flyna uses and has certified. But the information given here is not sufficiently specific to indicate that the Flyna certification system would fail to prevent the company’s use of illegally sourced wood.[/color]
[color=#3c3737]The correct answer is D.[/color]

Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,390
Own Kudos:
778,367
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,390
Kudos: 778,367
Is this question/solution flawed 23 Jul 2025, 14:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ybb1234
[color=#3c3737]Greetings,

I have found the solution and its respective reasoning to be flawed, it also does not follow the argument evaluation 'reasoning section'. The question states that only sampling 10% of the population is not enough and some illegal mills may go 10 years without inspection, thus undermines the claim from Flyna, that their wood supply obtained is 'legally justified'. However, legally justified if taken by face value means they did not break any law, or if we dive deeper, in terms of corporate practices, whether they are dealing in good faith. My argument is that random sampling of 10% of the total population per year is statistically sound, in addition, we do not know how long this inspection has been going on for, it can be a 100 years, or the first; but the provided solution seems to assume that this form of inspection is new and there is a high chance of a 'high number' of existing illegal mills, significant enough to challenge the integrity or legality of this operation. I seem to be jumping all over the place. Thus I am here seeking guidance on questions in this manner, what level of assumptions we should make in context, for example, should we make assumptions to push the question forward (like the solution is making) or only neutral assumptions. If this helps, I chose A. Many thanks and I wish 800 for all of us.



Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna’s furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X’s lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna’s claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna’s claim?[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Only about one-third of Flyna’s inspectors were hired from outside the company.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Country X’s government recently reduced its subsidies for lumber production.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Flyna has had to pay higher than expected salaries to attract qualified inspectors.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    The proportion of Country X’s lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna’s staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.    [/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]
    Illegal logging costs Country X’s government a significant amount in lost revenue each year.    [/color]

[color=#3c3737]Argument Evaluation[/color]
[color=#3c3737]Situation[/color][color=#3c3737]The Flyna Company sells furniture mostly made in Country X from local wood. Illegal logging is widespread in Country X. Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. Specialized staff make surprise visits to Country X mills, inspect documentation to ensure that the wood supply has a legal origin, and certify mills as approved sources for legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. According to the argument, Flyna’s claim that its wood supply is legally obtained is justified.[/color]
[color=#3c3737]Reasoning[/color][color=#3c3737]What additional information would, if true, most undermine the justification for Flyna’s claim that its Country X wood is legally obtained? Clearly, much depends on the thoroughness of the certification scheme. For example, the staff auditing the mills would need to be qualified for the job and meticulous in meeting their responsibilities. The auditing visits would need to be frequent enough, and not predictable by mill management. Flyna would need to be genuinely committed to ensuring legality of wood sources; it would need to monitor its staff to ensure that they were doing their jobs effectively.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]A. This suggests that Flyna could make good judgments as to the competence and trustworthiness of most of the inspectors hired to certify lumber mills.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]B. This could provide a perverse incentive to loggers to violate legal restrictions on logging. However, this would not undercut Flyna’s justification for its claim that its system ensures that all its lumber is legally sourced.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]C. This has no bearing on whether Flyna’s certification system will be effective in guaranteeing that Flyna’s lumber is legally sourced. We are not told, for example, that Flyna has been unable to find enough qualified inspectors for the certification system to be effective.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]D. Correct. This means that 90 percent of Country X’s certified lumber mills are not inspected in any particular year. Moreover, since the selection of the 10 percent of lumber mills to be inspected in a given year is random, some lumber mills might go for much longer than ten years without inspection; during this period, many of those mills might fall below certification standards and even use lumber illegally obtained.[/color]
  • [color=#3c3737]E. This indicates that a significant amount of illegal logging occurs in Country X; this suggests that it is possible that some illegally sourced wood could find its way to lumber mills that Flyna uses and has certified. But the information given here is not sufficiently specific to indicate that the Flyna certification system would fail to prevent the company’s use of illegally sourced wood.[/color]
[color=#3c3737]The correct answer is D.[/color]
Show more

This is an official question and discussed in detail here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/stockholders ... 21874.html

Hope it helps.

Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts