Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an architecture firm, from competing for city contracts for five years because the firm and its head executives were convicted of bribing city officials to obtain a contract. Due to another of the laws, these actions also resulted in the imprisonment of those executives, who are no longer employed by the firm. In this case, the law prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts most harms the firm's employees who were innocent of the wrongdoing. Person B: The employees of Gesait benefited from the illegally obtained contract, and other firms were harmed. The five-year prohibition redresses the wrong done to other firms and eliminates the benefits to employees of Gesait from the firm's illegal activities. Select for Sentence 1 the sentence that best completes Person A's argument, and select for Sentence 2 the sentence that best completes Person B's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column. Source: Official Mock 6 Untitled.png

Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an architecture firm, from competing for city contracts for five years because the firm and its head executives were convicted of bribing city officials to obtain a contract. Due to another of the laws, these actions also resulted in the imprisonment of those executives, who are no longer employed by the firm. In this case, the law prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts most harms the firm's employees who were innocent of the wrongdoing. Person B: The employees of Gesait benefited from the illegally obtained contract, and other firms were harmed. The five-year prohibition redresses the wrong done to other firms and eliminates the benefits to employees of Gesait from the firm's illegal activities. Select for Sentence 1 the sentence that best completes Person A's argument, and select for Sentence 2 the sentence that best completes Person B's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column. Reading the arguments, we see that they are different and separate positions on the matter of Gesait's corrupt activities and the legal responses to those activities. So, in selecting the answer for each sentence, we need to consider only the argument that the sentence completes. In other words, we can find the answer for each part separately. Sentence 1 The punishment of Gesait has no effect on Gesait employees. This choice contradicts things Person A says, which are "these actions also resulted in the imprisonment of those executives," and "the law prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts most harms the firm's employees." We see that what Person A says indicates that the punishment has effects on Gesait employees. Eliminate. The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair. The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair. Neither of these choices can be correct because Person A says nothing that indicates that Person A finds the imprisonment of the executives fair or unfair. Eliminate. Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair. This choice follows from what Person A says, "the law ... most harms the firm's employees who were innocent of the wrongdoing." After all, it makes sense that harming innocent employees would be considered unfair. Select for Sentence 1 . Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair. This choice is clearly incorrect for Sentence 1 since it contradicts the previous choice, which is in line with Person A's argument. Eliminate. Sentence 2 The punishment of Gesait has no effect on Gesait employees. This choice contradicts what Person B says: "The five-year prohibition ... eliminates the benefits to employees of Gesait." Eliminate The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair. The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair. Person B does not discuss the imprisonment of the executives. Eliminate. Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair. This contradicts the implications of what Person B says: "The five-year prohibition redresses the wrong done to other firms." After all, something that redresses wrongs would be considered fair, not unfair. Eliminate. Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair. This choice follows from what Person B says about redressing wrongs. After all, an action that serves to redress wrongs would be considered fair. Select for Sentence 2 . Correct answer: Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair. , Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair.

The important thing to note here is that the argument's of Person A & B are not focusing on the laws that prohibit Gesait and whether the laws are fair or unfair. The Focus is on corrupt activity that led to the prohibition and whether such prohibition is fair or unfair. These answer choices are trap answers:- "The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair." "The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair."

But person A mentions the imprisonment to be wrongful which is caused by another law then how come "The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair." not right?

No where does person A state that what was done was wrongful. Any mention of the executives in A's statements seem to be facts about what happened to them. Furthermore, the second half of their quote shifts the focus to the employees so naturally, the conclusion should involve them as well.

Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an a : Two-part Analysis (TPA)

Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Sentence 1	Sentence 2
		The punishment of Gesait has no effect on Gesait employees.
		The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair.
		The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair.
		Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair.
		Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions