It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 10:48

### 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

# It is a mistake to give post office employees individual

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 121
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 14:38
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:56) correct 54% (01:09) wrong based on 409 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages. If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol, it is only a matter of time before all packages will arrive having already been opened due to some postal employee’s idle curiosity.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

-Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
-Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
-The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
-There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
-Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.

Can some one help with option D?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by pqhai on 12 Aug 2013, 15:30, edited 1 time in total.
Rename the topic.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 15:23
7
KUDOS
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

The wording is quite convoluted, but the main idea is:

Hypothesis: Individual employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol probably because of postal employee’s idle curiosity.
KEY word: “without first following a strict protocol” because: although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still want open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Make sense
Conclusion: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages.

Assumption: The first reason postal employees open suspicious packages is that they are curious. Or no other reasons make postal employees want to open suspicious packages.
Negate the assumption to confirm: postal employees are not curious when they decide to open suspicious packages. ==> Cannot say “it’s a mistake to give them rights to open suspicious packages”.

ANALYZE EACH OPTIONS:

-Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about the right of “service managers”.

-Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
Wrong. The fact that suspicious packages are indistinguishable or distinguishable does not affect “curious” employees, who want to open all suspicious packages (does not matter the packages are distinguishable/indistinguishable). Thus, B is not the assumption.

-The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about “the efficiency”.

-There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
Wrong. TEMPTING because of the wording, not of the meaning.
The stimulus only says employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol because of their curiosity. Let rephrase, although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Therefore, If there is no protocol, we do not know they are curious or not.. Hence, D cannot be the assumption.

-Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.
Correct. As stated above.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2013
Posts: 106
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V28
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 16:37
Even there is no protocol in place, employee might not open the package if they are not curious. So this assumption does not add value to conclusion.

Hope this help
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 123
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 20:17
Hi,

I have a question on option E, which I presume is the OA.

A basic tenet of Assumption question is "it" being not explicitly mentioned in the passage.

Curiosity as a trait is mentioned in the passage as the reason which leads to opening of suspicious packages.

How can then option E be correct?

Regards

Argha
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 21:15
argha wrote:
Hi,

I have a question on option E, which I presume is the OA.

A basic tenet of Assumption question is "it" being not explicitly mentioned in the passage.

Curiosity as a trait is mentioned in the passage as the reason which leads to opening of suspicious packages.

How can then option E be correct?

Regards

Argha

I think you're correct. An assumption, according to GMAT standards, has some characteristics:
- An assumption is a hidden statement which must be true for a conclusion to hold true.
- We cannot t deduct an assumption simply from given information because it has some new information.

Regards.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 123
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 21:31
Thanks pghai

Will wait for some more discussions on this.

Regards

Argha
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2013
Posts: 51
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.6
WE: Law (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2013, 03:28
argha wrote:
Hi,

I have a question on option E, which I presume is the OA.

A basic tenet of Assumption question is "it" being not explicitly mentioned in the passage.

Curiosity as a trait is mentioned in the passage as the reason which leads to opening of suspicious packages.

How can then option E be correct?

Regards

Argha

I would be careful of such a blanket rule that an assumption must not be mentioned in a passage. While that may often be the case, sometimes the author clearly states an assumption. Here, the author implies curiosity is the reason that causes opening of suspicious packages but nowhere is there evidence provided that this the case--hence it's an assumption. The only "proof" provided is an opinion disguised as an authoritative statement (it would be otherwise if there was a mention of a survey which found that if given the opportunity, postal workers would like to open packages due to curiosity). The conclusion here is that it is a mistake to give the employees discretion, based on a premise that relies on a few assumptions, two of which are directly stated--1) some employees will certainly abuse discretion 2) the reason they will do so is their curiosity and 3) the degree of abuse would be so rampant as to cause ALL packages to be opened (or alternatively, the urge to open could not be resisted).
Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 218
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 07:35
pqhai wrote:
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

The wording is quite convoluted, but the main idea is:

Hypothesis: Individual employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol probably because of postal employee’s idle curiosity.
KEY word: “without first following a strict protocol” because: although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still want open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Make sense
Conclusion: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages.

Assumption: The first reason postal employees open suspicious packages is that they are curious. Or no other reasons make postal employees want to open suspicious packages.
Negate the assumption to confirm: postal employees are not curious when they decide to open suspicious packages. ==> Cannot say “it’s a mistake to give them rights to open suspicious packages”.

ANALYZE EACH OPTIONS:

-Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about the right of “service managers”.

-Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
Wrong. The fact that suspicious packages are indistinguishable or distinguishable does not affect “curious” employees, who want to open all suspicious packages (does not matter the packages are distinguishable/indistinguishable). Thus, B is not the assumption.

-The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about “the efficiency”.

-There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
Wrong. TEMPTING because of the wording, not of the meaning.
The stimulus only says employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol because of their curiosity. Let rephrase, although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Therefore, If there is no protocol, we do not know they are curious or not.. Hence, D cannot be the assumption.

-Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.
Correct. As stated above.

Hope it helps.

picked b

Could you explain how it does not matter whether packages are indistinguishable or not. If they are clearly distinguishable employees should not open the other ones and hence all packages may not arrive opened. The argument also says employees are allowed to open only suspicious packages and if we can identify which ones are suspicious not all the packages will arrive opened.

Also e was explicitly stated in the argument.
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 12:39
ramannanda9 wrote:
picked b

Could you explain how it does not matter whether packages are indistinguishable or not. If they are clearly distinguishable employees should not open the other ones and hence all packages may not arrive opened. The argument also says employees are allowed to open only suspicious packages and if we can identify which ones are suspicious not all the packages will arrive opened.

Also e was explicitly stated in the argument.

Hi ramannanda9

I think you misunderstood a little bit. Do NOT assume "distinguishable" is "suspicious". They are totally different. "Suspicious" does not need to be "distinguishable" and vice versa. The "suspicious" packages may look the same as other packages.

B does not matter because the "suspicious" packages may or may not be distinguishable from all other packages. Hence, B cannot be the assumption.

About E, yes, it is stated in the stimulus. Technically, it "should not" be the assumption per GMAT standards. However, it's the best among all.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 218
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2013, 23:54
pqhai wrote:
ramannanda9 wrote:
picked b

Could you explain how it does not matter whether packages are indistinguishable or not. If they are clearly distinguishable employees should not open the other ones and hence all packages may not arrive opened. The argument also says employees are allowed to open only suspicious packages and if we can identify which ones are suspicious not all the packages will arrive opened.

Also e was explicitly stated in the argument.

Hi ramannanda9

I think you misunderstood a little bit. Do NOT assume "distinguishable" is "suspicious". They are totally different. "Suspicious" does not need to be "distinguishable" and vice versa. The "suspicious" packages may look the same as other packages.

B does not matter because the "suspicious" packages may or may not be distinguishable from all other packages. Hence, B cannot be the assumption.

About E, yes, it is stated in the stimulus. Technically, it "should not" be the assumption per GMAT standards. However, it's the best among all.

Hope it helps.

Oh! but i did not mean that; what i meant earlier was that the suspicious packages are distinguishable from the correct ones; In that case the distinguishable nature of the packages can help in clear demarcation of which packages are suspicious and which are not and employees would then, not open the correct ones and hence all packages will not arrived opened.
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Posts: 2

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 23:46
ramannanda9 wrote:
pqhai wrote:
ramannanda9 wrote:
picked b

Could you explain how it does not matter whether packages are indistinguishable or not. If they are clearly distinguishable employees should not open the other ones and hence all packages may not arrive opened. The argument also says employees are allowed to open only suspicious packages and if we can identify which ones are suspicious not all the packages will arrive opened.

Also e was explicitly stated in the argument.

Hi ramannanda9

I think you misunderstood a little bit. Do NOT assume "distinguishable" is "suspicious". They are totally different. "Suspicious" does not need to be "distinguishable" and vice versa. The "suspicious" packages may look the same as other packages.

B does not matter because the "suspicious" packages may or may not be distinguishable from all other packages. Hence, B cannot be the assumption.

About E, yes, it is stated in the stimulus. Technically, it "should not" be the assumption per GMAT standards. However, it's the best among all.

Hope it helps.

Oh! but i did not mean that; what i meant earlier was that the suspicious packages are distinguishable from the correct ones; In that case the distinguishable nature of the packages can help in clear demarcation of which packages are suspicious and which are not and employees would then, not open the correct ones and hence all packages will not arrived opened.

Hi ramannanda9,

This is my understanding of why option B is wrong. Firstly, let's look at the question stem, it is an assumption question. Assumptions are like strengthener's to reinforce the strength of the conclusion, and make us believe them. So, keeping this in mind, if we look at option B, it states that " Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of packages" If this were true, then would this lead the author to conclude that " It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages." No it wouldn't, so it in-fact, weakens the conclusion. And, if we negate it to state the logical opposite, then the statement would be " Suspicious packages are not indistinguishable from all other kinds of packages, or , suspicious packages are distinguishable from all other kinds of packages". This would in turn strengthen the conclusion, which ideally is the opposite of the intended effect of negation ( i.e. negating an answer choice is supposed to weaken the argument not strengthen it).

Hope this helps, and if you feel that I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Current Student
Status: ..and that's a wrap!!
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 80
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.36
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consumer Products)
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2013, 22:59
I have a query here with regards to the OA.

Doesn't E restates what is already given in the argument. The last line of the argument states that the postal employees open the packages out of curiosity - so if it is already stated how can it be an assumption (unstated premise).

I did read the above discussion on the same query however I am not convinced.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10158
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2016, 02:32
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Posts: 15
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2016, 14:33
pqhai wrote:
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

The wording is quite convoluted, but the main idea is:

Hypothesis: Individual employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol probably because of postal employee’s idle curiosity.
KEY word: “without first following a strict protocol” because: although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still want open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Make sense
Conclusion: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages.

Assumption: The first reason postal employees open suspicious packages is that they are curious. Or no other reasons make postal employees want to open suspicious packages.
Negate the assumption to confirm: postal employees are not curious when they decide to open suspicious packages. ==> Cannot say “it’s a mistake to give them rights to open suspicious packages”.

ANALYZE EACH OPTIONS:

-Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about the right of “service managers”.

-Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
Wrong. The fact that suspicious packages are indistinguishable or distinguishable does not affect “curious” employees, who want to open all suspicious packages (does not matter the packages are distinguishable/indistinguishable). Thus, B is not the assumption.

-The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about “the efficiency”.

-There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
Wrong. TEMPTING because of the wording, not of the meaning.
The stimulus only says employees open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol because of their curiosity. Let rephrase, although there is strict protocol (it means the opening suspicious packages may not be necessary if the postal employees follow strict protocol), employees still open the packages. Why? Because they are curious. Therefore, If there is no protocol, we do not know they are curious or not.. Hence, D cannot be the assumption.

-Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.
Correct. As stated above.

Hope it helps.

Hi,

E reads - Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.

It means that ALL Postal employees have a "desire to open packages out of curiosity". However, the stem says: "...will arrive having already been opened due to SOME postal employee’s idle curiosity."

Hence, i selected B. Any views welcome.
Re: It is a mistake to give post office employees individual   [#permalink] 27 Jan 2016, 14:33
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
18 It is a mistake to give post office employees individual 21 01 Jul 2016, 00:31
12 It is a mistake to give post office employees individual 10 09 Mar 2017, 16:24
11 Council member: The preservation of individual property 15 31 Jul 2016, 02:19
49 According to a recent magazine article, of those office employees who 31 28 May 2017, 00:36
19 Brownlea s post office must be replaced with a larger one. 27 08 Sep 2016, 08:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by