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

It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 16:56

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

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 387
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Sep 2017, 19:57
10
22
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:56) correct 39% (01:52) wrong based on 1325 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

Source: LSAT

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…

_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas


Originally posted by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 20:26.
Last edited by broall on 18 Sep 2017, 19:57, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: Edge of Extinction
Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Posts: 38
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2012, 07:08
6
Assumption
Prephrase: !Wrong = Right

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.Contender, check later. On 2nd pass, read stimulus again, reduction of aggregate well being is a premise, not the conclusion. Incorrect.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.Fig leaf/Shell/Out of scope. Incorrect.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. Contender. Check later. On 2nd pass, read stimulus again. Strengthens conclusion and not a premise. Correct.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.Strengthens premise, not conclusion. Incorrect.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences. Weakens. Incorrect.

Thanks Vom. :)
_________________

The only ability the GMAT is an indicator of...is the ability to do well on the GMAT.

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2013, 12:22
3
vomhorizon wrote:
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…



increase well being, reduce well being, unchaged well being.... Morally right, Morally wrong... I can attack saying that correspondingly we can
have third type of actioh - neither right nor wrong corresponding to unchanged well being. this is going to hurt the conclusion, so it assumes
this does not exist. Hence Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right. No third action type..

Kudos if u like :)
_________________

Impossibility is a relative concept!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 124
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2013, 06:44
vomhorizon wrote:
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…


This question appears more like inference.
Can someone explain the OE..???


Thanks,
JaI
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1849
Concentration: Finance
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2014, 09:33
sagarsingh wrote:
vomhorizon wrote:
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…



increase well being, reduce well being, unchaged well being.... Morally right, Morally wrong... I can attack saying that correspondingly we can
have third type of actioh - neither right nor wrong corresponding to unchanged well being. this is going to hurt the conclusion, so it assumes
this does not exist. Hence Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right. No third action type..

Kudos if u like :)


Anyways, could someone explain why answer choice A is not the correct one? Would provide some Kudos for good answers

Cheers
J
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2014, 09:23
vomhorizon wrote:
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…


Looks to me as a inference question instead of the assumption question.

One of the Assumption in my pre-thinking phase was:
The net aggregate well being can be calculated after an action is taken/executed.

Option A) cannot be an assumption as it is stated in the premise.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 21:41
1
1
Premise : > wellbeing -> Morally right
Premise : < wellbeing -> Morally wrong
Conclusion : = wellbeing -> also morally right.

C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

If you negate it, the conclusion cannot be drawn.

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them. - Looks more like of a conclusion.

(B) No action is both right and wrong. - Out of scope

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right. -Correct


(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.
We are not talking about the existence of any such actions.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences - Out of scope.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 232
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 21:59
jlgdr wrote:
sagarsingh wrote:
vomhorizon wrote:
Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

(A)

P + A -- C, This assumption does not really help the conclusion (logically) as the conclusion refers to those actions whose Net aggregate is neither + or – ve..

(B)

This additional Premise (assumption) still does not logically strengthen the argument, as it still leaves the HOLE intact (why do we take anything that ISNT wrong as BEING
RIGHT?) ..

(C)

This premise (assumption) clears one major logical obstacle, it allows us to ASSUME that whatever is not WRONG can be considered RIGHT (morally) therefore the HOLE in the argument has been logically filled.

(D)

Although at first glance this answer choice is definitely a contender, on further analysis it doesn’t really make the argument logically more sound. Sure it does refer to the GREY AREA (unchanged aggregate) but it doesn’t go to the heart of the problem which is, why should we consider such actions as RIGHT….Why not WRONG?

(E)

This assumption is a part paraphrase of an earlier premise, and a part out of scope, because it really has no bearing on the ultimate conclusion as the conclusion admits that the actions (grey area) neither have a positive net aggregate nor a negative …

Hope it helps…



increase well being, reduce well being, unchaged well being.... Morally right, Morally wrong... I can attack saying that correspondingly we can
have third type of actioh - neither right nor wrong corresponding to unchanged well being. this is going to hurt the conclusion, so it assumes
this does not exist. Hence Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right. No third action type..

Kudos if u like :)


Anyways, could someone explain why answer choice A is not the correct one? Would provide some Kudos for good answers

Cheers
J


Option A is an extreme statement. By mentioning that 'ONLY' wrong actions reduce the aggregate well being of the people, we have to assume there is no other thing other than wrong actions that could reduce the aggregate well being. And that is not true.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 89
Schools: IIMA
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2014, 04:53
It is indeed a very good question , initially I thought answer a E but later after taking few more seconds I marked c :) C has wide range !!!
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2013
Posts: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: Insead '14, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 08-28-2014
GPA: 3.86
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2014, 06:05
[quote="vomhorizon"]Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably
expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of
the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally
right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably
expected to leave unchanged the aggregate
well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

Assumption is the ogical jump which the author has made while making conclusion.

We need to find the jump , As mentioned in Question stem that Any thing that if & only if reduces is .....morally wrong & any thing that increase...is morally right.

on which he concluded actions that results unchanged are also right ....

He jumps from wrong actions that result in ..-ve to .....unchanged <in which he assumes that only those are actions are morally wrong which reduces the ..>

therefore C
_________________

G-prep1 540 --> Kaplan 580-->Veritas 640-->MGMAT 590 -->MGMAT 2 640 --> MGMAT 3 640 ---> MGMAT 4 650 -->MGMAT 5 680 -- >GMAT prep 1 570

Give your best shot...rest leave upto Mahadev, he is the extractor of all negativity in the world !!

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 59
Reviews Badge
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 09:41
Amazing question..let's BOIL this THINGY down.

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

Increase well-being => Right
Wrong <=> Decrease well-being.

What's the key? Well the damn FIRST arrow of the second BOIL statement, mate! This means..the ONLY way an action is wrong is if it decreases well-being.
By that school of thought, an action that leave the people unaffected is NOT WRONG. We have:


Premise: Unaffected => NOT WRONG
Assumption: ????
Claim: Unaffected => RIGHT

I think from this point..you can deduce the answer:

Answer: A


The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

Source: LSAT
_________________

Insanity at its finest.

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1849
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2018, 02:56
certainly, this LSAT question never has chance to appear in the actual exam, but the pattern of this LSAT question is much similar to that of gmat questions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 22 Apr 2017
Posts: 112
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q46 V30
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V29
GMAT 3: 630 Q49 V26
GMAT 4: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.7
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2018, 11:55
I was confused between C and D.
D assumes that there are some actions when done have no net effect. What if there is no such action which can do so? Any thoughts.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Apr 2018
Posts: 17
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2018, 04:19
ManishKM1 wrote:
I was confused between C and D.
D assumes that there are some actions when done have no net effect. What if there is no such action which can do so? Any thoughts.



Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate wellbeing of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right

The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(B) No action is both right and wrong.

(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.

(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

(E) Only right actions have good consequences

If we negate the option "D", we have :

There are NO actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.

this means there no such action at all. Hence no point of that action being morally RIGHT OR WRONG.
This option is not necessary for the conclusion to hold.
Hence Eliminate D
Re: Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be &nbs [#permalink] 28 Jun 2018, 04:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be

  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®.