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

 It is currently 17 Dec 2018, 04:48

# R1 Decisions:

Michigan Ross Chat (US calls are expected today)  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  (Calls expected to start at 7am PST; Applicants from Asia will hear first)

### 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 December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### 10 Keys to nail DS and CR questions

December 17, 2018

December 17, 2018

06:00 PM PST

07:00 PM PST

Join our live webinar and learn how to approach Data Sufficiency and Critical Reasoning problems, how to identify the best way to solve each question and what most people do wrong.
• ### R1 Admission Decisions: Estimated Decision Timelines and Chat Links for Major BSchools

December 17, 2018

December 17, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

From Dec 5th onward, American programs will start releasing R1 decisions. Chat Rooms: We have also assigned chat rooms for every school so that applicants can stay in touch and exchange information/update during decision period.

# Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 146
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V34

### Show Tags

Updated on: 02 Dec 2017, 21:38
5
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (02:27) correct 51% (02:20) wrong based on 361 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, fully eight percent of all employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert, a top brokerage firm have been convicted of such violations. This dubious distinction clearly indicates that employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.

B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.

C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.

D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.

_________________

I'm happy, if I make math for you slightly clearer
And yes, I like kudos
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally posted by VenoMfTw on 31 Oct 2015, 21:04.
Last edited by Mahmud6 on 02 Dec 2017, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Formatted
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7107

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2015, 03:00
MrSobe17 wrote:
What is the OE for D?

A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.
we are comparing within brokerage firms only, so out

B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.
the use of 'most' negates the choice

C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.
a deceptive choice.. we are talking about % and not number

D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.
the choice is correct... because of the four times the average number people being convicted, the arguement claims people are four times more corrupt...
there may be more number of peoplecorrupt but the level may be less,..

E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success
out of scope
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 82
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2017, 00:15
This is indeed an challenging question. Hence, I would like to post my explanation of the correct answer choice.

Option D compares the level of corruption between :
1. Individuals on a staff (Think of it as a whole group)
2. Individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior

Now, Option D says that level of corruption between the above mentioned individuals is NOT directly related.

Therefore, you cannot conclude that just because 8% of the MBAs at the firm have been convicted (Group 2) , all the the firm's employees with MBA (Group 1) will be proportionally corrupt (i.e 8%).

Therefore, Option B weakens the argument and is the correct answer.
Intern
Joined: 22 May 2018
Posts: 9
Location: Korea, Republic of

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2018, 16:19
Why C can't be an answer? I don't really understand what it means. Doesn't that mean that the employees with MBAs in Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert were not guilty (cause they cleared of all wrong-doings)? Please explain thanks!
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1061
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2018, 22:31
VenoMfTw wrote:
Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, fully eight percent of all employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert, a top brokerage firm have been convicted of such violations. This dubious distinction clearly indicates that employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.

B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.

C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.

D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.

Imo D

This is a great question about population.

The argument gives us some statistics regarding the folks with MBA working with brokerage firms to be corrupt.
Mow we have to weaken the question we have to somehow show that the conclusion is not sound and it may not necessarily follow form the premises given in the argument.

Folks who were implicated for the violations of the Securities and Exchange Act may be corrupt but it may not be that folks who work at the mentioned brokerage firms are corrupt. So we can not generalize.
We have to look for the option that gives us some reason that shows that conclusion does not follow the premises.
Only D does that.
Please read this excellent blog by Mike from Magoosh on this very topic.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-crit ... pulations/
_________________

Intern
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 27

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2018, 23:08
arvind910619 wrote:
VenoMfTw wrote:
Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, fully eight percent of all employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert, a top brokerage firm have been convicted of such violations. This dubious distinction clearly indicates that employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.

B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.

C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.

D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.

Imo D

This is a great question about population.

The argument gives us some statistics regarding the folks with MBA working with brokerage firms to be corrupt.
Mow we have to weaken the question we have to somehow show that the conclusion is not sound and it may not necessarily follow form the premises given in the argument.

Folks who were implicated for the violations of the Securities and Exchange Act may be corrupt but it may not be that folks who work at the mentioned brokerage firms are corrupt. So we can not generalize.
We have to look for the option that gives us some reason that shows that conclusion does not follow the premises.
Only D does that.
Please read this excellent blog by Mike from Magoosh on this very topic.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-crit ... pulations/

Hi,
I have a doubt the argument forecasts that " Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act". Sp how we can segment the staff working in a firm with the business school graduates, the staff may include other persons as well, which is not in scope. How can we generalize to the whole working group that may may mot include the B school grads.

And, from this line "employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.." i can assume that most of the employees have to be b graduates else the argument falls apart. To weaken the conclusion i need a point which either states that sample collected is too short or a new info.
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1061
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2018, 04:35
Tamao411284 wrote:
arvind910619 wrote:
VenoMfTw wrote:
Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, fully eight percent of all employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert, a top brokerage firm have been convicted of such violations. This dubious distinction clearly indicates that employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.

B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.

C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.

D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.

Imo D

This is a great question about population.

The argument gives us some statistics regarding the folks with MBA working with brokerage firms to be corrupt.
Mow we have to weaken the question we have to somehow show that the conclusion is not sound and it may not necessarily follow form the premises given in the argument.

Folks who were implicated for the violations of the Securities and Exchange Act may be corrupt but it may not be that folks who work at the mentioned brokerage firms are corrupt. So we can not generalize.
We have to look for the option that gives us some reason that shows that conclusion does not follow the premises.
Only D does that.
Please read this excellent blog by Mike from Magoosh on this very topic.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-crit ... pulations/

Hi,
I have a doubt the argument forecasts that " Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act". Sp how we can segment the staff working in a firm with the business school graduates, the staff may include other persons as well, which is not in scope. How can we generalize to the whole working group that may may mot include the B school grads.

And, from this line "employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.." i can assume that most of the employees have to be b graduates else the argument falls apart. To weaken the conclusion i need a point which either states that sample collected is too short or a new info.

Hi The argument itself is limiting its scope by giving us statistics only about graduates with MBA degree. Now coming on to your doubt how can we segment the employee, well we do not need to do that at all. All argument is concerned about is graduates with MBA degree and working in brokerage Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert. Using these two premises that authoer concludes that folks with MBA degree are more corrupt at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert that at other firms.

So all we have to do is to find out that the said conclusion can not be applied to the sample that the argument cites.

Now coming on to your next question.
There can be people without degrees as well. People who have just attained high school education level. This information in may is not necessary to the argument as we are only concerned with folks who have MBA degrees.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Re: Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business &nbs [#permalink] 03 Jul 2018, 04:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by