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.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
13 May 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
90% (01:27) correct
10%
(01:57)
wrong
based on 115
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It is in fact illegal to make use of prison labor from foreign countries that have poor human rights records. However, if our company does not do so, others will.
Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 313
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 230
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Products:
13 May 2026, 19:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Core structure:
Now check choices.
A) Says company policy may be broken to avoid losses.
Different justification. Not “someone else would do it.”
B) Hunting deer is illegal. Defense: if defendant had not hunted them, someone else would have.
Exact same structure.
C) Says no endorsement actually occurred.
Denies wrongdoing instead of justifying it.
D) Says people traditionally object to the law.
Appeal to tradition, different logic.
E) Says many landlords violate the law.
Just because others do it, not because someone else would do it anyway.
Answer: B
- Action is illegal/wrong.
- Defense: “If I don’t do it, someone else will.”
Now check choices.
A) Says company policy may be broken to avoid losses.
Different justification. Not “someone else would do it.”
B) Hunting deer is illegal. Defense: if defendant had not hunted them, someone else would have.
Exact same structure.
C) Says no endorsement actually occurred.
Denies wrongdoing instead of justifying it.
D) Says people traditionally object to the law.
Appeal to tradition, different logic.
E) Says many landlords violate the law.
Just because others do it, not because someone else would do it anyway.
Answer: B
BongBideshini
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 390
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 137
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: HBS '27 Stanford '27 Wharton '27 Sloan '27
GPA: 3.8
WE:Engineering (Government)
13 May 2026, 22:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Original argument structure:
Yes, action X is illegal/wrong.
But:
"If we don't do it, someone else will." Therefore implied justification:
Doing X is acceptable anyway.
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
>Says policy is violated, but negotiation is necessary to avoid losses. This is a necessity argument, not a “someone else would do it” argument.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
>Yes, hunting deer is illegal. But if the defendant had not done it,
Someone else would have.
Same flawed justification structure.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
>Argues no violation actually occurred. Different structure.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
> Says law exists, but people traditionally object to it. No “someone else would do it” logic.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
> Says many landlords violate the law. This choice doesn't suggest that if landlords hadn't raised the rent, someone else would have stepped in and raised it for them.
Answer: B
Yes, action X is illegal/wrong.
But:
"If we don't do it, someone else will." Therefore implied justification:
Doing X is acceptable anyway.
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
>Says policy is violated, but negotiation is necessary to avoid losses. This is a necessity argument, not a “someone else would do it” argument.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
>Yes, hunting deer is illegal. But if the defendant had not done it,
Someone else would have.
Same flawed justification structure.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
>Argues no violation actually occurred. Different structure.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
> Says law exists, but people traditionally object to it. No “someone else would do it” logic.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
> Says many landlords violate the law. This choice doesn't suggest that if landlords hadn't raised the rent, someone else would have stepped in and raised it for them.
Answer: B
ExpertsGlobal5
