AkamaiBrah wrote:
10 freshmen analysts are finishing up their first year with Merrill Barney Brothers. Every Monday morning for the past 52 weeks, each intern was called individually into a meeting of partners and asked whether each of a handpicked group of stocks would go either up or down during the week. All of the analysts made their decisions independently. The partners used the analysts' predictions to assist them in setting the weekly strategy for the thousands of brokers throughout the country. At the end of each week, each analyst's performance was recorded and tracked. After 52 grueling weeks, analyst Stolyar had the best percentage, correctly predicting the rise or fall of his stocks 68% of the time, an outstanding performance in a profession where getting anything more than 55% correct was considered great. At the other end of the scale, analyst Curly consistently got only a dismal 10% or less correct week after week. When bonuses were awarded, as expected, Stolyar was generously rewarded by the partners. However, to Stolyar's dismay, the partners gave Curly by far the highest bonus of all.
Which of the following is the most plausible explanation of what prompted the board to make its decision?
(A) Curly was related to two of the partners and was also the president's son. No one else was related.
(B) Curly worked more hours than anyone, was always that last one to leave the office, and constantly did extra chores for the partners, something the partners clearly appreciated.
(C) Although Curly had a dismay track record, his winning picks rose on average three times as much as those of any other analyst.
(D) Curly was heard to complain that he was overworked and underpaid, and the partners thought that he was about to resign.
(E) Curly always had an impeccably well-research and documented rationale for each of his picks, regardless of the results, which impressed the partners immensely.
Okay chief, here's my answer:
The question states that interns were asked to predict the movement of "a handpicked group of stocks". Now, firstly, the picking could have been done by the interns or by the partners, and secondly, the bonuses have to be based not on accuracy if the predictions but on some other criteria if curly is to get a higher bonus than Stolyar. Therefore, if we analyse the choice,
(A) could be the reason, since "no one else was related"
(B) could be the reason if work-hours was the basis
(C) could be the reason, since it presents a possibility that curly's stock-picks rose more than stolyar, and therefore earned more profit for the company
(D) and (E) are unlikely answers since they do not point towards anything special about curly as compared to stolyar
I pick (C) since this seems to be the most logical explanation for a broking company and therefore explains the board's decision best amongst the choices