GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Jul 2018, 16:26

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

14 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 137
GMAT ToolKit User
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 07 Jun 2018, 16:23
14
1
41
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (01:16) correct 50% (01:34) wrong based on 698 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

(A) attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members

(B) mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

(C) attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects

(D) simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial

(E) assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group

Originally posted by JCLEONES on 14 Jan 2008, 12:32.
Last edited by hazelnut on 07 Jun 2018, 16:23, edited 5 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
17 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1076
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2013, 22:33
17
8
Hi Punyata
Welcome to gmat club :) I'm glad to help.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates [potential candidates] to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges [current members] teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
Correct. Mel talks about potential candidates, however Pat talks about current members

B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
Wrong. The argument does NOT talk about the cause of a change (the legislature’s move to raise the salary).

C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
Wrong. Pat just says the ban will have little or no negative effect. He does NOT talk anything about positive effect.

D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
Wrong. TEMPTING but wrong. Pat denies Mel’s claim WITH evidence in support. However, his evidence has problem itself.

E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
Wrong. TEMPTING but wrong. Pat said the change does NOT hurt (will have little or no negative effect) the current member. He did NOT say the change BENEFITS the current member. These logics are totally different..
For example: The new shopping outlet does not have negative effect to shopping malls in downtown. ==> It does not mean the new shopping outlet has positive effect to shopping malls in downtown.

TAKE AWAY:
Be aware of reverse logics
A does NOT hurt B ==> does not mean A supports B
A does NOT support B ==> does not mean A hurts B


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.

General Discussion
2 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1063
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2008, 05:56
2
[quote="JCLEONES"]Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
I think it's the best choice since the evaluation from Pat take into account only the current members. maybe the change will affect potential members. Is it OA?

B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
I have some doubts regarding this choice but I actually don't see cause-effect relationship in the Pat's thought
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects

the absence of negative effects is the core of the argument
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial

that's falseE. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group. false
3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 204
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2010, 10:38
3
1
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has
done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with
a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.CORRECT. Usage of WILL in the last sentence
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that changeINCORRECT
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effectsPat says that the ban will have little OR no negative effectsTherefore, he does not entirely rule out the effects (negative or other). Just points to the gravity of the effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denialINCORRECT
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.There is no connection between delivering lectures and ability of the judges

I initially picked C. But OA given is A and hence I formulated the above reasoning
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 52
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2010, 23:29
As to why the answer is NOT C: Pat doesn't say that there is positive effect (there is little or no negative effect)
_________________

I am not born to be a GENIUS nor a GMATTER. If you are struggling, we are in the same boat. Fight to the last!!

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 322
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2010, 23:36
2
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has
done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with
a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

Would go with A.... as the same is best option. Pat does give his analysis on checking the current members of the group being discussed. He doesn't take into account the future aspect of it... What if more judges begin to teach!!!

E was a close contender but the wording talks about most able members.... this implies that judges who do not teach are most able and hence this is incorrect.

Hence A should be correct...
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!! :beer

|Do not post questions with OA|Please underline your SC questions while posting|Try posting the explanation along with your answer choice|
|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|


~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 70
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2011, 01:47
the new legislature move proposes increasing the salary of judges(positive move) and also banning them from receiving money from lectures/teachings(negative move).

Pat believes their since their are very few judges existing judges who give lectures,the effect of -ve move is almost neglible.
this reasoning is flawed because it is taking into account only the existing group and not the prospective judges.
option A addresses this point

while option C says that Pat's reasoning is flawed because he "attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects"
"C" ASSUMES that Pat is right when he talks about "absence of negative effects",when it is clear that new rule DOES have negative effects(ie new rule isnt taking into consideration the potential members,who might have problem with 2nd part of new rule,which discourages them from joining the profession).
3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2013
Posts: 1
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2013, 13:44
3
2
to attract the best candidates to the job - so we(well, Mel, but it is good to be sympathetic to the argument) are looking for what is favored by potential candidates and do not care about what current members do.

And Pat simply talks about current judges.

So, reading through choices was a breeze and I immediately chose A.

But I admit this problem is bit tricky. I tutor GMAT and two of my brighter students who recently tried this problem got it wrong. So, let me illustrate a fail-safe elimination based approach if one missed this critical fact during the first reading that the argument is about future candidates. Let's say we are simply looking for why raise in salary cant compensate ban on teaching although few judges teach.

A. the word 'potential' should make us think that we missed something. Good if you see connection. But if you don't, at least the second half of choice is spot on ie. Pat does provide evidence about effect on current members. So, don't eliminate even if your eyes don't light up

B, D - clearly wrong.

C - tempting choice..come back to it.
E - doesn't have much to say. increase in salary benefits all members and nothing being said about 'most able' members - so kinda illogical.

Reviewing choices C and A, Pat does admit to negative effects and does not deny them. So, C is wrong.

But, to be sure of the answer, at least at this stage of carefully re-reading the choice and perhaps glancing at the argument again, the word 'potential' should click.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 148
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2014, 14:54
JCLEONES wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

Looking at options A and C
Though i agree withexplanation given by d3thknell that C" ASSUMES that Pat is right when he talks about "absence of negative effects",when it is clear that new rule DOES have negative effects(ie new rule isnt taking into consideration the potential members,who might have problem with 2nd part of new rule,which discourages them from joining the profession).
But I dont completely agree with Choice A too.. choice "A" mentions "By Providing Evidence"..But there is no evidence mentioned. Can someone please clarify?
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Posts: 23
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2014, 14:16
Can someone clarify for me too, why option C is incorrect? All explanations in favor of option A or against option C I read before don't seem convincing enough. The source of this question is GmatPrep Exam Pack 1, so it is crucial for me to understand testmaker's logic here.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 125
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2014, 19:38
1
pretzel wrote:
I don't understand why the OA is A either.


Even I chose the wrong answer initially. After going through the forum feel A is better choice. Here is my view on A.

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job.
- This line states that Currently Judges are involved in some other profession rather to be as judges since the pay scale is less The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.This line states that the more eligible candidate to be judges has chosen the profession as Teaching.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few
judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.
-- Pat is stating that "Since very few judges" --> he is talking about currently who ever is performing the role of a judge. But Mel statement is based on the candidate who are currently involved in teaching profession

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members. --> Based on above desc, A fits in to it perfectly
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 182
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2014, 11:23
The answer to this question will come when we asses how Pat gave response to Mei.
Mei says that best candidates will still not be attracted some benefits have been removed that have been compensated by an increase in salary but this will have little incentive for able candidates to join now.
Pat replies that the salary increase does improve the situation as few judges give lectures.
Pat actually says that the increase in salary will attract candidates ( but he does not talk about the whether able candidates will still be attracted or not).


A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
-- Correct for the reason stated above.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
-- There is no cause and affect in this argument.
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.
-- Out of scope.
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
-- Out of scope.
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
-- This is actually the opposite of how Pat replied.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Aug 2015
Posts: 13
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 570 Q42 V26
GMAT 3: 700 Q48 V38
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jan 2016, 03:24
zaarathelab wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.


A : Correct . Pat's response that very few judges teach is based on the current lot of judges. This is the very thing that Mel is advocating to change, since, they the current lot is inefficient.
B : Incorrect. Inability of judges to lecture or teach is not the basis of this change.
C : Incorrect. Pat does not give any evidence of positive effect.
D : Incorrect. Pat does not deny Mel's claim, he simply says the ban is of liitle or no consequence.
E : Incorrect . No talk of benefit to every member due to the change.
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jan 2015
Posts: 82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 01:45
Very nice question! Mel says that some changes will fail to increase the attractiveness of the job for potential employees. Pat says, that the ban has no effect on current employees. So the answer is A.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2015
Posts: 95
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2016, 09:21
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.

In order to answer such Questions look for the unstated assumption.

M : Premise 1 : salary not enough.
Premise 2 : salary increased but judges not allowed to earn from teaching assignments.
Conclusion : Income still not enough
Assumption : because earlier there were no restrictions on earning from teaching assignments but now there is

Example : Earlier avg judge salary 100k
teaching assignments etc : avg pay : 20k
avg total income : 120k

Now judges avg salary : 110k
other income from teaching assignments etc : 0
Total avg= 110k

P : Premise : Most judges currently dont take extra teaching assignments/lectures. So little -ve effect or no -ve effect
Conclusion : salary enough after increase
Assumption : No option in the future to earn more from teaching assignments (even required by the judges). Current solution not considering the future judges and their potential need to earn more


A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
potential members and current members, what the differnce ? P talks about most current judges (Not good enough(
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
Not relevant
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
But pat does point out the -ve effects, he just says that little or no impact due to it
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
P does put evidence forth "most judges dont take lectures"
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
Bingo!! exactly our assumption, hence our answer

BTW i got it wrong in my test, but only cuz i was running out time. I doubt this is 700 level Q
_________________

You have to dig deep and find out what it takes to reshuffle the cards life dealt you

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 17
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2016, 13:19
1
1
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.



I did it by process of elimination
My answer is A

Why not B?
The cause and effect relationship in his statement is completely sound.

Why not C?
He did'nt straight away said that there will no negative effect (absence of negative effects), instead he points of towards the possibility that there may be "little or no negative effect". (if little was not there then this was a good option)

Why not D?
He did give evidence that very few judges are involved in teaching and lectures.

Why not E?
This is completely irrelevant, no where stated.


I am not sure about why A should be right
Can anyone help?

And if you liked my explanations kudos please :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 89
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2017, 10:40
Expert,
Could you clearly specify why option A is better answer over option C?
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3687
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2017, 10:52
VKat wrote:
Expert,
Could you clearly specify why option A is better answer over option C?


Option C is wrong because it says PAT is saying there will be no Negative effect(See here: by pointing to the absence of negative effects).

But actually Pat said there may be little negative effect. So, we cannot ignore this little effect and say no negative effect.

Option A is right because It says PAT is giving assurance about future based on current situations. It may happen that in future there are many judges who start receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements. Hence, we can not say, this ban "will" have little or no negative effect.

I hope that makes sense. :)
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 674
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2017, 22:51
A is my go. mel talks about besties while Pat gives the situation as a whole i. e. including everyone.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Jan 2014
Posts: 22
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2017, 11:14
A- attempts to assess how a certain change ( ban on income through lectures and assignments)will affect potential members(new judges) of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.(current judges).
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract &nbs [#permalink] 18 Jul 2017, 11:14

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.