Last visit was: 09 Jul 2025, 05:33 It is currently 09 Jul 2025, 05:33
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
555-605 Level|   Weaken|                  
User avatar
Pankaj0901
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,370
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,370
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
achloes
Joined: 16 Oct 2020
Last visit: 19 May 2025
Posts: 252
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,382
GMAT 1: 460 Q28 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 610 Q39 V35
GMAT 4: 650 Q42 V38
GMAT 5: 720 Q48 V41
GMAT 5: 720 Q48 V41
Posts: 252
Kudos: 200
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
HC1993
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Last visit: 11 Dec 2022
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
WE:Account Management (Advertising and PR)
Posts: 21
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MikeScarn
generis
Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna's claim?

As GMATNinja mentioned, no answer choice demolishes the justification, so let's pick the one that most weakens the justification.

Between A and D:
generis
A) Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.
Only 1/3 of the inspectors are from outside the company. So 2/3 of the inspectors are from inside the company.

Does that weaken the justification? Well, perhaps we could infer that the in-house inspectors would be incentivized to keep the company in good standing... even if that meant illegally reporting the wood supply to be legal even though it may not be.

But can we make that inference? Heck no. That's way out of scope. We can only work with what we've been directly given from the passage.

Therefore, the ratio of in-house inspectors to out-of-company inspectors is irrelevant to us. Eliminate
generis
D. The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.
Only 10% of the mills are inspected? That's pretty dang low. If 90% of these mills aren't inspected, are we sure that Country X's wood is obtained legally?

Weakens

Why can't we choose option A when it's weakening the conclusion? how is it out of scope, I don't understand. Because as far as I know and see, new information can be used to weaken the argument. no?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,349
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,963
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,349
Kudos: 68,486
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
AndrewN GMATNinja

I'm trying to keep an open mind but D still feels like a stretch compared to A.

Can it not be that perhaps Flyna only sources its wood from 10% of Country X's lumber mills? In other words, Country X could be illegally logging most of its wood, but Flyna visits 10% of the country's mills (seeing as D does not say 10% of the mills Flynna sources from) and only buys from those that pass its checks. In which case, Flyna would be justified in claiming that "its Country X wood supply is obtained legally".

Appreciate your thoughts!
You're correct that we don't know the exact lumber mills which Flyna uses, or the overall percentage. It's also true that if the lumber mills that Flyna uses are inspected, we'd expect the wood to be legally obtained. So if the 10% that Flyna uses happen to be the ones that get inspected, (D) would not weaken the argument, as you suggest.

Notice, however, that (D) specifies that the lumber mills inspected each year are "randomly selected." So if the inspections are done at random, that rules out the idea that Flyna is specifically inspecting only the mills it uses.

The argument concludes that Flyna's claim that it obtains wood legally is justified because of the inspections. But if the inspections only verify a randomly selected 10% of the lumber mills, that leaves 90% that might have illegally obtained lumber, and that Flyna might use. Since this weakens the argument that Flyna obtains its wood legally, (D) is correct.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,349
Own Kudos:
68,486
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1,963
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,349
Kudos: 68,486
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HC1993
MikeScarn
generis
Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna's claim?

As GMATNinja mentioned, no answer choice demolishes the justification, so let's pick the one that most weakens the justification.

Between A and D:
generis
A) Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.
Only 1/3 of the inspectors are from outside the company. So 2/3 of the inspectors are from inside the company.

Does that weaken the justification? Well, perhaps we could infer that the in-house inspectors would be incentivized to keep the company in good standing... even if that meant illegally reporting the wood supply to be legal even though it may not be.

But can we make that inference? Heck no. That's way out of scope. We can only work with what we've been directly given from the passage.

Therefore, the ratio of in-house inspectors to out-of-company inspectors is irrelevant to us. Eliminate
generis
D. The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.
Only 10% of the mills are inspected? That's pretty dang low. If 90% of these mills aren't inspected, are we sure that Country X's wood is obtained legally?

Weakens

Why can't we choose option A when it's weakening the conclusion? how is it out of scope, I don't understand. Because as far as I know and see, new information can be used to weaken the argument. no?
As you suggest, new information can definitely be used to weaken a conclusion. But as MikeScarn points out above, the problem with answer choice (A) is that it really doesn't weaken the conclusion.

Let's take a closer look:

Quote:
A. Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.
You might be tempted to conclude from this that Flyna's inspectors (i.e. 2/3 of the inspectors) would be more likely to let lumber mills get away with illegally obtained wood. But is this idea supported?

Well, keep in mind that ALL of the inspectors are working for Flyna. So if Flyna's inspectors have a conflict of interest, it would apply equally to all the inspectors, not just the ones hired from inside the company.

Put another way, for (A) to be correct, we'd need to assume that Flyna employees hired from within the company are more likely to be corrupt than Flyna employees hired from outside the company. But at the end of the day, they're both Flyna employees, so there's really no reason to conclude this.

Additionally, the justification for (A) rests on the assumption that Flyna inspectors actually have a conflict of interest -- i.e., that Flyna secretly wants to use illegally obtained lumber. But again, we have no reason to believe this. Maybe illegally obtained lumber is lower quality? Maybe it's just as expensive? Maybe it's deficient for some other reason? Regardless, we have no reason to think that Flyna would actually prefer illegally obtained wood, or that the inspectors would have a conflict of interest.

For all those reasons, (A) doesn't weaken the argument, so it can be eliminated.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
sk05
Joined: 10 May 2021
Last visit: 18 May 2024
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 18
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
@GMATNinja

Option D states that the proportion of mills inspected is 10%. It can be so that the staff inspect only 10% and provide certifications to those. And, since, Flyna only buys from certified mills, it can buy from those 10% mills that are certified. We don't care if the staff inspected the 90% or not because Flyna doesn't necessary needs to buy from those mills.

Option A is the correct answer in my opinion since the group of inspectors are not independent and they might be biased in their inspection for reasons such as costs
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,527
Own Kudos:
4,988
 [2]
Given Kudos: 149
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,527
Kudos: 4,988
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sk05
Option D states that the proportion of mills inspected is 10%. It can be so that the staff inspect only 10% and provide certifications to those. And, since, Flyna only buys from certified mills, it can buy from those 10% mills that are certified. We don't care if the staff inspected the 90% or not because Flyna doesn't necessary needs to buy from those mills.

Option A is the correct answer in my opinion since the group of inspectors are not independent and they might be biased in their inspection for reasons such as costs
This question isn't ideal since the reasons why (D) undermines the case for Flyna's claim aren't completely clear since the relationship between what (D) says and what goes on with Flyna and lumber mills in Country X is not entirely clear or logical. Does Flyna use lumber from all the mills in Country X? Does it certify only mills that it gets lumber from or also certify mills it doesn't get lumber from? Why does it randomly inspect 10 percent of all the mills Country X?

What would make more sense is that Flyna's staff inspects each year 10 percent of the mills from which Flyna gets wood, but that's not what (D) says.

I guess the fact that Flyna's staff inspects only about 10 percent of the mills in Country X casts doubt on the conclusion that "Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified," since mills that haven't been inspected recently could be producing lumber illegally. So, since (D) does cast at least a little doubt on the conclusion, it is the best choice.

All the same, since the scenario presented by the OA isn't clear and doesn't make complete sense, this question isn't great.

That said, (D) is the best choice since (A) doesn't really mean that the inspectors don't do a good job. After all, we don't have information indicating that inspectors hired from within the company have reason to fake the inspection results or the inspectors hired from within the company are not as honest as inspectors hired from outside the company. In fact, if there's something fraudulent going on with the inspections, then inspectors hired from outside the company would presumably also engage in the fraudulent behavior since they too are working for Flyna.

Also, notice that the passage states as fact that the inspectors "review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber." So, the passage appears to indicate that the inspectors do in fact ensure that the wood is of legal origin. Thus, the honesty of the inspectors is not open to question, meaning that (A) does not indicate any flaw in the certification system.
User avatar
reed990
Joined: 02 Jun 2024
Last visit: 28 Aug 2024
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 32
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the real world of "QC", it seems very common sense to have this 10%, but "randomly selected" check to ensure the certification. Thus, I would prefer A to D.
User avatar
reed990
Joined: 02 Jun 2024
Last visit: 28 Aug 2024
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 32
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
reed990
In the real world of "QC", it seems very common sense to have this 10%, but "randomly selected" check to ensure the certification. Thus, I would prefer A to D.
­Another thoughts regarding D: as it says "Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. ". Even if 1% is randomly inspected, and thus, certified, the wood will only from this 1%, and it is ensured that the wood supply is legal. It seems A is the only good answer left. 
User avatar
hughng92
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Last visit: 05 Jan 2025
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 67
Kudos: 69
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks! This is helpful as I picked A with the same reasoning but agreed - there was no evidence to believe 2/3 of their in-house people would do their best to protect the company.
MikeScarn
generis
Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna's claim?

As GMATNinja mentioned, no answer choice demolishes the justification, so let's pick the one that most weakens the justification.

Between A and D:
generis
A) Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.
Only 1/3 of the inspectors are from outside the company. So 2/3 of the inspectors are from inside the company.

Does that weaken the justification? Well, perhaps we could infer that the in-house inspectors would be incentivized to keep the company in good standing... even if that meant illegally reporting the wood supply to be legal even though it may not be.

But can we make that inference? Heck no. That's way out of scope. We can only work with what we've been directly given from the passage.

Therefore, the ratio of in-house inspectors to out-of-company inspectors is irrelevant to us. Eliminate
generis
D. The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.
Only 10% of the mills are inspected? That's pretty dang low. If 90% of these mills aren't inspected, are we sure that Country X's wood is obtained legally?

Weakens
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 141
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 141
Kudos: 60
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun can you pls chime in? So many experts have explained but still clueless

Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills.

Process of certification:
Step 1:
professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin,
Step 2: make surprise visits to mills to verify documents,
Step 3: and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber.

First of all whats happening here? Is documentation, surprise visit and certification happening first then the procurement?
Or procurement happening first then everything else?

Either way pls explain whats the flaw/gap in argument and how D makes sense if Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills - as long as it is certified whats the issue?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 01 Jun 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,054
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MalachiKeti
Either way pls explain whats the flaw/gap in argument and how D makes sense if Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills - as long as it is certified whats the issue?
Hi MalachiKeti,

The most important thing here is to prioritise targeting the certification process. This will help us take a couple of troublesome options out.

Stimulus:
1. The author implies (but does not state directly) that certification depends on both a review of documentation and surprise visits. We can attack either or both of these.

2. We can attack the staff of auditors and forestry professionals.

3. We can also attack the statement "Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills".

We should also be open to things not stated in the stimulus that could undermine Flyna's claim that its X wood supply is obtained legally.

Option A: This option uses only before one-third, so we focus on whether {mostly Flyna employees} is better or {mostly non-Flyna employees} is better.

Generally speaking, we can assume that both hiring and oversight are easier internally (working with external providers and consultants is generally more opaque). Therefore, option A strengthens the argument, which is the opposite of what we need.

Option B: I like this option. Cutting subsidies can be expected to lead to a further increase in illegal logging. Given that illegal logging is already widespread, even more illegal logging could crowd out legal supplies of wood.

However, this option doesn't directly target Flyna's processes.

Option C: This option could have been good if it had told us that Flyna compromised on the quality of its inspectors. But that's not what it says. Instead, C tells us that Flyna has had to pay "higher than expected salaries" to attract qualified inspectors. We don't care about the cost as long as the inspectors are qualified.

Option D: This option stands out, for multiple reasons.

Firstly, checking for compliance almost always involves a trade-off. 10% may be a common target (as reed990 points out in this post), but that doesn't mean that it's a good target.

Secondly, frequency is also an issue. Even though Flyna uses only certified mills, there is always the risk of noncompliance post-certification. That is, once a mill has been certified, how can Flyna be sure that it (the mill) hasn't started (or gone back to) using wood obtained from illegal logging?

By the way, this is a real concern. For example, in the garment and cocoa industries, many producers put on a show for the occasional inspection and then go right back to using (for example) child labour.

Effectively, a mill could easily go 10 years or more without being inspected again. Therefore option D gives us a major reason to doubt Flyna's claim.

Option E: If illegal logging costs country X's government a significant amount in lost revenue, that strengthens the claim that illegal logging is widespread. It's safe to say that the more serious a problem is, the harder it is to overcome. However, we should go negative on option E, because it doesn't target Flyna's processes.
User avatar
pearrrrrrr
Joined: 30 May 2023
Last visit: 26 May 2025
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 306
Posts: 59
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Not to doubt the solution but I was curious about the answer choice D.

D. The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.

from the argument, I understand that the mills was inspected by 'a staff of auditors and forestry professionals not Flyna's staff

Can you point out where did I misunderstand the argument?
GMATNinja MikeScarn
User avatar
Pif96
Joined: 24 Sep 2024
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 262
Posts: 16
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
To be honest, about the "D" answer, the term "randomly selected" made me fall into error (The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected).

It seems to say that in a statistical approach the lumber mills have been inspected. In fact, nowhere exists a way to inspect each element of a production!

For me is definitely A the right answer ! These are the GMAT questions that i hate anyway....
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,349
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,963
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,349
Kudos: 68,486
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pearrrrrrr
Not to doubt the solution but I was curious about the answer choice D.

D. The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.

from the argument, I understand that the mills was inspected by 'a staff of auditors and forestry professionals not Flyna's staff

Can you point out where did I misunderstand the argument?

GMATNinja MikeScarn
I'm late to the party again here, but in case it helps somebody out there: we're told that Flyna hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals. Since that staff was hired by Flyna, it's accurate to refer to those auditors and forestry professionals as "Flyna's staff".

I hope that helps a bit!
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts