IMO C

Margaret: former police officers of the Litian police force are more likely to work as SECURITY OFFICERS than other Litians.===>NOTE:THIS SECURITY OFFICER CAN BE SECURITY OFFICER OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY ALSO ,,,,,IT IS NOT TOLD THAT HE/SHE WILL BECOME SECURITY OFFICER ONLY IN LITIA.

Sam: Obviously, you haven’t considered the fact that 80 percent of all security officers working in Litia have never served in the Litian police force.===>HE IS TALKING ABOUT LITIAN SECURITY OFFICERS ONLY.

(A)It shows that being able to become a security officer does not always result in becoming one.==>
Passage is NOT talking about ability rather about LIKELIHOOD.===>Wrong

(B)It provides additional evidence in support of Margaret’s claim.==>this doesnt supports margaret claim.

(C)It is compatible with Margaret’s claim.===>this is possible.....it is possible because polic officer can become security officer in other country also...hence it is compatiable==>correct

(D)It provides statistical information that proves Margaret’s claim incorrect.===>incorrect we cant conclude so.

(E)It shows the distinction between what is necessary to become a security officer and what is sufficient to become one.==>doesnt shows any distinction. wrong

hence C

WAITING OA
_________________

Gist of what Margaret says : A former police officer in Litia will have a more quantified desire/inclination to become a security officer, than someone(Litian) who is from a non-police background.

Gist of what Sam says : The current strength of all the security officers in Litia has 80% of people who have not been in the Litian Police force,however the remaining 20% have served in the Litian police force at some point of time in the past.

The bone of contention between both :

Likely to do something doesn' always result in DOING that. To paraphrase what Margaret said, if given an option among say Job A, Job B and Job C(Security Officer), a retired police officer(Litian) is more likely to choose Job C.However,it is by no means,binding on him/her.Also, they both might be talking about 2 different sets of people.


(A)It shows that being able to become a security officer does not always result in becoming one.
It is no-where mentioned that the retired police officers were not able to qualify as security officers.

(B)It provides additional evidence in support of Margaret’s claim.
Evidence in support of Margaret's claim would have been if Sam would have stated something like this : Out of the given strength of retired police officers(Litian), 90% are currently security officers.

(C)It is compatible with Margaret’s claim.
Correct.Maybe there are 100 security officers in Litia. 80 are from a non-police background and among these 80 people, maybe some are not even from Litia itself.However,20 were in the Litian police force.
Say the retired police officers in Litia are 30 in number. Thus, out of 30, 20 are security officers now.So,what Sam states is compatible with Margaret's said.

(D)It provides statistical information that proves Margaret’s claim incorrect.
This option would be correct,had Sam said something like this :
Out of the given strength of retired police officers(Litian), 90 % have expressed an interest in not becoming a security officer.

(E)It shows the distinction between what is necessary to become a security officer and what is sufficient to become one.
No such thing is evident.

IMO C.
_________________

According to Sam, most of the security officers does not come from police force. It can be true. eg there are 1000 police officers and 800 of them become security officers. The total number of security officers could be 10000. Hence number of security officers coming from police force could be minuscule % of total police officers.

Nice one. Admittedly C and D are close contenders. But D is incorrect because Margaret's claim is not proven incorrect (at least we ca not conclude so). Hence C is correct.

Margaret: According to a report provided by the National Employment Department of Litia, former police officers of the Litian police force are more likely to work as security officers than other Litians.

Sam: Obviously, you haven???t considered the fact that 80 percent of all security officers working in Litia have never served in the Litian police force.

Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Sam???s reply?
(A)It shows that being able to become a security officer does not always result in becoming one.
(B)It provides additional evidence in support of Margaret???s claim.
(C)It is compatible with Margaret???s claim.
(D)It provides statistical information that proves Margaret???s claim incorrect.
(E)It shows the distinction between what is necessary to become a security officer and what is sufficient to become one.

OA here is C. Imo D should have been the answer. Please explain.

@chetan2u Please explain this one!

Please help me in understanding this complicated CR which I am trying to solve since long.

Let us analyse the argument

Margaret: According to a report provided by the National Employment Department of Litia, former police officers of the Litian police force are more likely to work as security officers than other Litians.
According to Margaret former police of Litia are more likely to work as security officers than other latians .

Sam: Obviously, you haven’t considered the fact that 80 percent of all security officers working in Litia have never served in the Litian police force.

Not whole security officers are former police officers .

Lets take the strength of police officers who retired as 100
The total number of security officers 500
So suppose all retired police officers become security officers they will make 20 % of the security force .
Hence both the statements are compatible .
Imo C

this is a common pattern in gmat, and kaplan has one question similar to this question in the book.
yes, C is correct.
Ones can understand the argument in this way. There are around 20% of security guards used to be police officers. Of the rest, lower than 20% of security guards will come from any Lithian.