Last visit was: 17 May 2024, 20:15 It is currently 17 May 2024, 20:15
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93334
Own Kudos [?]: 624550 [7]
Given Kudos: 81898
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2024
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2023
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [2]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: India
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2021
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 198
Location: India
GMAT 1: 470 Q27 V28
GMAT 2: 590 Q43 V28
GMAT 3: 600 Q39 V34
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
divyansh843 wrote:
IMO D might be the correct answer. Confused so pls help with reason if it is wrong

Posted from my mobile device

But does option D mention whether the salary actually increased which is equivalent to Edwards actually getting scolded by the Head of the University?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q31 V34
GRE 1: Q163 V154
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I selected D but get why C is the right one. Can someone break down each option since I felt I took way more time on this question. I want to understand if my reasoning can be improved. ­
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2021
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
I don't understand why C is correct.

In the original statement, it is assumed that Prof. has an impeccable behavior, thus it must be university's fault. But in C the author provides a proof that, the person getting promoted has worked less than 3 years ( a mandatory criteria for getting promoted ). So how are they same ?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Sep 2023
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
hverma10 wrote:
I don't understand why C is correct.

In the original statement, it is assumed that Prof. has an impeccable behavior, thus it must be university's fault. But in C the author provides a proof that, the person getting promoted has worked less than 3 years ( a mandatory criteria for getting promoted ). So how are they same ?



the general idea of the reasoning in the statement provided in the question is that, there can be 2 causes for the outcome, since one of the reason is not possible, therefore the other cause must be the reason

outcome - getting scolder
cause 1 - revealing embarrassing info
cause 2 - gross professional negligence

in option C
outcome - getting promoted
cause 1 - worked for atleast 3 years
cause 2 - got a sponsor

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2024
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
According to the question, it might seem to the general public that there are 2 major reasons for the censorship; however, in reality, exclusively for Prof. . Edward, there is only one reason. It can be clearly understood from the passage that the professor's behaviour is not the reason for his censorship by the university. The only plausible reason is his revelation of embarrassing information.

Problem with option D:
1. It is generally about employees, not specifically about one person.
2. There are two reasons for the merit salary increase, and both of them are valid in different employee contexts. It fails to show the singularity of the dual reasons.

Why is C the correct option?
1. It explicitly talks about one single person.
2. shows the duality of the reasoning. Even though contextually it may seem to have two reasons, in reality there is only one reason available for the promotion.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93334
Own Kudos [?]: 624550 [0]
Given Kudos: 81898
Send PM
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
­Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing to the university. After all, to have been publicly censured by the head of the university, as Edwards was, a professor must either have revealed information that embarrassed the university or have been guilty of gross professional negligence, and Edwards’s professional behavior is impeccable.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) According to company policy, employees who are either frequently absent without notice or who are habitually late receive an official warning. Since Ms. Jensen has never received such a warning, rumors that she is habitually late must be false.

(B) Any employee of Wilkins, Waddel, and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will either be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all, no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted.

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor. Daniels, therefore, has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

(D) To earn a merit salary increase, an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products. No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer. Simon has been recommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation.



­
This is a CR Butler Question

    Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
­

­

Veritas Prep Official Explanation:



Like Method of Reasoning questions, Mimic the Reasoning questions hinge on your understanding of argument structure and not on your ability to contribute to (or attack) the argument in question. It is therefore important to divorce the argument from subject matter and outline the direction of the argument in your own terms.

In this question, the argument essentially says (remember that order of presentation does not matter):

An action took place (he was censured). There are only two possible explanations for that action (either he revealed embarrassing information or he was professionally negligent). One of the two possible explanations is eliminated so the other one must be true (his professional behavior is impeccable so he must have revealed information.

In reading the answer choices, your only goal is to find that exact structure, regardless of the order of presentation and the subject matter. Only answer choice C contains this structure:

An action took place (he was promoted). There are only two possible explanations for that action (either he has an influential sponsor or worked for more than three years). One of the two possible explanations is eliminated, so the other one must be true (he did not work for more than three years, so he must have an influential sponsor).­
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts