Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure

Question

Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry’s ability to operate safely. However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials?

(A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.

(B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.
 
(C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.

(D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

(E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.

ID - CR01905

Petrochemical Safety

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrasing provide the strongest support for the position in the question stem indicates that this is a  Strengthen the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

PI officials: cost cutting in last 5 yrs → no harm to safety

Enviro.: cost cutting → recent spills & accidents

Two groups disagree on the outcome of cost cutting measures at petrochemical plants. One group believes that safety has not been affected. The other group believes that cost cutting measures have caused serious oil spills and accidents.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

The question asks you to provide support for the position held by industry officials. The right answer will support the conclusion that cost-cutting during the last five years has not hurt safety.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer implies that the petrochemical industry has an incentive to avoid accidents. However, it does not clarify whether there is a relationship between cost-cutting measures and accidents. The petrochemical industry might want to avoid accidents, but be unable to do so, because there simply isn’t enough funding.

(B) This answer could imply that the industry unions believed that safety issues were due to cost-cutting because they demanded additional funding. It could also imply that the unions don’t hold that belief, since they readily abandoned their demands for funding. Without knowing exactly what the unions’ beliefs were, and without knowing whether the unions’ beliefs were correct, this answer does not support either the industry officials or the environmentalists.

(C) CORRECT . According to this answer choice, cost-cutting actually hasn’t led to cutbacks in environmental and safety measures. In fact, more resources are being used on these measures now than were used prior to the cost-cutting. So, the safety issues during the last five years cannot be blamed on inadequate safety funding: if inadequate funding was the cause, then you would also expect to see similar safety issues prior to the cost-cutting era, when funding for safety was even lower.

(D) This answer provides evidence that cost-cutting and safety issues are related; thus, it supports the environmentalists’ position, not the industry officials’ position.

(E) The industry officials’ claim is about the cause of the accidents. This answer choice deals with a result of the accident (increased oil-spill prevention resources), which could have occurred regardless of the accident’s cause.

tarunk31 · Accepted Answer

Industry officials position: Cost cutting measures has done nothing to impair the industry’s ability to operate safely.

We need to support industry officials position.

Further, industry officials position seem to contradict the environmentalist's position that recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at pharmaceutical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.

POE

A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.

We need to support that cost cutting measures has not compromised on safety. This option makes a general observation but doesn't suggest whether cost-cutting compulsions did sacrifice safety. Eliminate.

B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, nut the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.

This option doesn't suggest whether unions industry did pay attention to union demands. Eliminate.

C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.

Good. This option suggests that those cost cutting measures by industry did not compromise on safety but focussed on other areas.

D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

This support environmentalist's position but not industry's position.

E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.

Out of scope. This option talks about measures taken after oil-spill, totally unrelated to industry official's position.
Ans C.
Hope it helps.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Simplify the argument -

Industry officials
Cutting costs to improve profits--> No impact on safety

Environmentalists
Cutting costs --> oil spills and accidents --> negative impact on safety.

We are asked to strengthen the industry officials' argument.

Option A - Incorrect.
this option says 
No accidents --> No losses due to damage to equipment and employees.
This option does not make it clear why cost cutting measures had little to no impact on safety.

Option B - Incorrect.
this kind of weakens the argument. if they abandoned their demands for additional safety measures, probably that had a negative impact on safety.

Option C - Correct.
Gives a reason to say why the cost cutting measures had no impact on safety. Because, they did not impact spending on safety measures.

Option D - Incorrect.
Weakens the argument.

Option E - Incorrect.
Note that we are talking about the impact of cost-cutting measures implemented in the last 5 years. The new measures taken to improve safety have no impact on that. Hence, not relevant.

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Understanding the Passage Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry’s ability to operate safely. According to Petro people, X has had no negative impact on Y X: the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs Y: the industry’s ability to operate safely In other words, Petro people say that this extreme pressure on plant managers has not decreased the operational safety of the petrochemical industry. (The pressure has been exerted to improve profits by cutting costs.) However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures. We have a contrast here. Environmentalists don’t agree with Petro people. Environmentalists say that the recent spate of oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is due to cost-cutting measures. X is a cost-cutting measure. Z: the recent spate of oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants Environmentalists say that X has led to Z. (Z, logically, indicates a negative impact on Y.) Understanding the Question Stem We are looking for support for the position held by industry officials. What is their position? X has had no negative impact on Y X: the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs Y: the industry’s ability to operate safely Thus, we need to support that this extreme pressure on plant managers has not decreased the operational safety of the petrochemical industry. One way we can support this is by saying that the recent spate of oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is due to some external factor and not due to cost-cutting measures. The Evaluation (A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product. Incorrect. Some people find this option correct since, per them, this option goes against environmentalists’ contention. Per them, given option A, the cost-cutting measures cannot lead to a lack of safety since the petrochemical industry benefits from the safety. However, this logic is flawed. Let’s take an analogy to understand why this logic is flawed. Suppose I state that your irregular eating habits have caused your bad health. Can you weaken my statement by saying that you’re benefited if you have good health? No. Why? Even though you benefit from good health, we know that you don’t have good health, and we are now trying to figure out the cause of your bad health. You cannot rule out a potential cause of bad health (irregular eating habits) by saying that you never wanted bad health. Does this make sense? (Even if this doesn’t, I have to move on!!

) Similarly, option A doesn’t weaken the environmentalists’ contention and doesn’t support the Petro people’s position. (B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security. Incorrect. This option says that these unions demanded safety and later abandoned demanding it. However, the option doesn’t indicate whether X has had an impact on Y or not. (X: the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs Y: the industry’s ability to operate safely) Thus, this option has no impact on Petro people’s position. (C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years. Correct. This option indicates that the cost-cutting measures have not decreased spending on environmental and safety measures. Essentially, the cost-cutting happened in other areas of operation but not on safety-related aspects. In such a case, there is no reason to argue that the industry’s ability to operate safely has decreased because of the cost-cutting measures. Thus, Petro people’s (industry official’s) position is strengthened. (Please note that this option directly challenges the statement made by the environmentalists - they were saying that the recent accidents are traceable to the cost-cutting measures; this option says that such a thing is not possible since no cost-cutting happened on the safety-related measures.) (D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted. Incorrect. Do you realize that this option is weakening the Petro people’s position? I believe people who mark this option don’t realize that it is doing the exact opposite of what we want. Trust me, doing so (marking an option that is doing exactly the opposite of what the question is asking) is quite common. Thus, before marking an option, I always ensure that the option is NOT doing the opposite of what the question is asking. (E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention. Incorrect. The option says that the petrochemical industry is now devoting more resources to oil-spill prevention because of large fines and adverse publicity Can this be used to argue that the industry believed that they can do more to increase the safety? Yes. Can this be used to argue that the industry’s cost-cutting measures lead to oil spills? I don’t think so. Even if the cost-cutting measures did not lead to any oil spills, the large fines and adverse publicity can still very much lead them to spend more resources on oil-spill prevention. This option, thus, has NO impact the Petro people’s position.

Divyadisha · Answer

Question is asking us to support industry official.

Industry official is claiming that cost cutting has no role in reducing the safety at work (or the recent oil spill)

A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.  In general its good, but it is not mentioning anything about cost cutting 
B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, nut the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.  abandoning the union's request has nothing to do with weather cost cutting leads to safety reduction. 
C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.  This supports the claim of industry official as despite of cutting the cost, it was in fact improved.  
D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.  weakens the officials statement by showing that cost cutting was reason of oil spill 
E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.  Cost cutting is not talked about

grsm · Answer

C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the  last five years than in the preceding five years.

Take a folloing case :- 
  preceding five years. 
# of safety incidents 1000

Last Five years
#of safety incidents 100

it may be the case that, more resources have been devoted towards reducing the  overall # of safety incidents . however it could still be that the 100 incidents are because of pressure for increasing the profits. Had the pressure not been there, there would have been very few accident (<5 accidents for example)
How can this scenario strengthen Petro executive's claim that the extreme pressure has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely?
 
I rejected this choice coz its comparing the last five years with previous five years 
......safety measures in the last five years than the preceding five years.

Still don't get it. Can someone please explain this ?

mykrasovski · Answer

We need to support Petrochemical industry officials (people who work in oil industry).

People from oil industry say that even though they cut expenses, this fact did not reduce the safety of operations. 
Environmentalists blame oil industry officials and say that cost cutting actually did reduce the safety and brought more accidents.

Well, the situation is simple: first kid says "My actions did not cause anything bad", and his friend says "yeah man, you actually did bad stuff because there is some evidence!" How can we support the first kid?

We need to find something that shows that expense cutting did not cause incidents and reduce safety.

This option says that accidents are bad for oil industry. The oil industry benefits when there are no accidents. This could work, let's keep this option.

If anything, this option would actually weaken oil industry officials' statement. This option says that cost cutting effects negatively affected safety, and some extra funds are needed to improve safety & job security.

In simple terms, this option says that yeah, oil industry cut a lot of costs, but those costs were cut in areas that do not touch safety and environment. In fact, some extra funds were pumped into safety and environment! This option is definitely better than option (A).

This option weakens the argument big time. Paraphrased, the option says that well, cost-cutting measures lead to oil spills. Nasty stuff! No one like oil spills, especially environmentalists. This option supports the environmentalists 100%.

This option is not very relevant to our argument because it talks about fines and publicity, which triggered oil industry people to do stuff. If anything, this option goes against the oil industry folks.

KarishmaB · Answer

In last 5 years, costs have been cut to improve profits. 
Petrochemical official says that this has not impaired ability to operate safely. 
Environmentalists say that recent accidents are traceable to cost cutting.

We need to strengthen the official's claim.

(A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.

Irrelevant. We need to focus on impact of cost cutting, not on impact of accidents. No-accidents may benefit the industry but this doesn't say that cost cutting did not lead to accidents. In any case, the intention of the management is irrelevant. We can only focus on what actually happened.

(B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.

Union's role is irrelevant.

(C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.

This says that the industry is actually putting in more money toward safety. So despite the cost cutting, the safety aspect should not be impaired. This supports the official's claim.

(D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

This helps the environmentalists.

(E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.

What happened in the last 5 years is our concern, not what they will do now.

Answer (C)

davidbeckham · Answer

Is the option E incorrect only because it mentions the most recent oil spill? In any case, the industry has increased the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention so doesn't that support the position of industry officials?

GMATNinja · Answer

In this question we're looking for the answer choice that best supports the Officials' position that:

the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the  last five years  to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry’s ability to operate safely

For (E) to be the correct answer, it need to help us explain how cost cutting has not prevented the industry operating safely,  despite  the extreme pressure to cut costs.

(E) tells us:
 
The passage told us the officials believe that the cost cutting measures put in place over the  past five years  have not affected the industry's ability to operate safely. (E) tells us the industry has increased the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention  after  the recent oil spills.

From this, we can say the industry is worried it was not devoting enough resources to oil-spill prevention before the accident. In turn, (E) implies the industry could not operate safely with all the cost cutting measures and the environmentalists were right.

Since this weakens the officials' position, (E) cannot be the correct answer to this question.

Compare (E) to (C):
 
(C) tells us that major cutbacks have occurred BUT the amount of resources dedicated to environmental and safety measures has  increased  in the last five years.

This suggests that it is not the cost cutting measures that have caused the recent accidents because the industry is dedicating  additional resources  to make their facilities  safer . Something else must be responsible for these accidents.

(C) provides evidence that helps support the officials' position -- (C) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

OA solution

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrasing provide the strongest support for the position in the question stem indicates that this is a Strengthen the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
 
PI officials: cost cutting in last 5 yrs → no harm to safety

Enviro.: cost cutting → recent spills & accidents

Two groups disagree on the outcome of cost cutting measures at petrochemical plants. One group believes that safety has not been affected. The other group believes that cost cutting measures have caused serious oil spills and accidents.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

The question asks you to provide support for the position held by industry officials. The right answer will support the conclusion that cost-cutting during the last five years has not hurt safety.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer implies that the petrochemical industry has an incentive to avoid accidents. However, it does not clarify whether there is a relationship between cost-cutting measures and accidents. The petrochemical industry might want to avoid accidents, but be unable to do so, because there simply isn’t enough funding.

(B) This answer could imply that the industry unions believed that safety issues were due to cost-cutting because they demanded additional funding. It could also imply that the unions don’t hold that belief, since they readily abandoned their demands for funding. Without knowing exactly what the unions’ beliefs were, and without knowing whether the unions’ beliefs were correct, this answer does not support either the industry officials or the environmentalists.

(C) CORRECT. According to this answer choice, cost-cutting actually hasn’t led to cutbacks in environmental and safety measures. In fact, more resources are being used on these measures now than were used prior to the cost-cutting. So, the safety issues during the last five years cannot be blamed on inadequate safety funding: if inadequate funding was the cause, then you would also expect to see similar safety issues prior to the cost-cutting era, when funding for safety was even lower.

(D) This answer provides evidence that cost-cutting and safety issues are related; thus, it supports the environmentalists’ position, not the industry officials’ position.

(E) The industry officials’ claim is about the cause of the accidents. This answer choice deals with a result of the accident (increased oil-spill prevention resources), which could have occurred regardless of the accident’s cause.

ArnauG · Answer

To provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials, we need to find an option that refutes the claim made by environmentalists that cost-cutting measures have led to the recent oil spills and accidents. Among the options provided, the one that provides the strongest support for the position held by industry officials is:

(C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.

This option supports the position of industry officials by stating that despite cost-cutting measures in other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has actually increased its allocation of resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years. This suggests that the industry recognizes the importance of safety and environmental protection and has taken steps to improve in these areas. The increase in resources dedicated to safety measures contradicts the claim that cost-cutting has compromised the industry's ability to operate safely.

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy  IMS's four-step technique .

STEP #1   ->  IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

Let us read the question stem to identify the question type. 
 
The stem indicates a  strengthening  question.

STEP #2   ->  X-RAY THE ARGUMENT

In a  strengthening  question, it is a must to x-ray the argument and deconstruct it. In this particular question, we are to look for an option that supports the position held by industry officials; let us therefore read the argument first and figure out the exact position that the officials hold soon after.
 
 POSITION OF THE OFFICIALS:  The extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry’s ability to operate safely.

POSITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS:  The recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.

STEP #3   ->  FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

To frame a shadow answer, we must know what the correct answer should do. In this question, the correct answer must support the viewpoint of the industry officials. An excellent way to support their position will be to prove the environmentalists wrong.

SHADOW ANSWER:  Any situation that leads us to believe that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is not necessarily traceable to cost-cutting measures, thereby supporting the position that cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely.

STEP #4   ->  ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS

(A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product. |  NOT A MATCH  |  The argument categorically indicates that serious accidents did occur; we need an option that suggests that the rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is not necessarily traceable to cost-cutting measures. Does this option tell us anything about what we are looking for? No!  |  ELIMINATE

(B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security. |  NOT A MATCH  |  If what is mentioned in this option is true, we will still not have a reason to believe that the rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is not necessarily traceable to cost-cutting measures. If anything, this option weakens the position of the officials, for it indicates that additional money was not spent   on safety and environment protection measures, implying that the rash could have occured on account of these very cost-cutting measures.  |  ELIMINATE

(C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years. |  MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER  |  This option tells us the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is not actually traceable to cost-cutting measures, for the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years even though there were major cutbacks in most other areas of operation. We now have a reason to believe that something else must have caused the rash and not the cost-cutting measures. This does exactly what we want the correct answer to do.  |  KEEP

(D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted. |  NOT A MATCH  |  If what is stated in this option is true, we have a valid reason to believe that it was likely the cost-cutting measures that led to the oil spills; remember, we are to strengthen the officials' position, not weaken it.  |  ELIMINATE

(E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention. |  NOT A MATCH  |  Any info regarding what the consequences of the oil spills have been can obviously not tell us whether or not these spills were linked to the cost-cutting measures undertaken by the plant managers.  |  ELIMINATE

Hence, C is the correct answer.

stackskillz · Answer

Taking a crack at this:

Conclusion  - Extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has not lead to poor safety standards. (Additional - Environmentalists disagree).

Ask  - Support the industrialists view point.

(A) Great to know the benefit. But doesn't address the concern that extreme pressure might have lead to cost-cutting leading to poor safety and spills. Environmentalist can still be right.  Drop

(B) Okay, seems tangential, but let's give this a try. Job security is more important to laborers than environmental protection. Does this mean extreme pressure was not being exerted on the plant manager. We can't say no to that.  Drop

(C) So there were some cutbacks but not in the safety departments (for at least the last five years).  Keep

(D) Good, this confirms the environmentalists view-point. Ke... Hmm.. Looks like we need the opposite here.  Drop 
Here's the fun part if you mistook forgot or misread the question, you might select this one. Attention pays.

(E) This tells us the aftermath of an oil-spill, not the original factors that resulted in the oil-spill, i.e., reg. cutting costs and poor safety standards.  Drop

Senersd · Answer

A) This implies that the petrochemical industry has an incentive to avoid accidents. Given that there is no stated tie between accidents and cost-cutting measures, this is not sufficient support.  Wrong

B) This outlines the unions opinion and role in the matter which is relevant. Wrong

C) This shows that the petrochemical industry actually increased funding to operational safety, therefore it is not possible that cost-cutting has impaired the industry's ability to operate safely.  Correct

D) This weakens the industry official's position as it confirms that cost-cutting measures resulted in the most damaging of recent oil spills.  Wrong

E) This states the response to the most recent oil spill but does not clarify the behaviour prior to the spill. Additionally, it does not specify anything about the operational safety of the industry as a whole.  Correct

Tejasethb · Answer

Officials- Cost cutting has nothing to do with the safety. 
A- This is a general statement not talking about the core of the argument that is cost cutting. 
B. What union demanded does not matter!
Cn the last five years than in the preceding five years-This phase means previous 5 years not previous to previous. This option is the bulls eye which is saying we have done cost ciutting but in the areas of safety we have placed enough resources. 
REMEMBER WHEN THE CONCLUSION IS ABOUT COST- correct will be talking about some kind of resource allocation or related otherwise not correct answer

Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure

Prep Toolkit

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