Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furnitur

@VeritasKarisha GMATNinja please can you help decode this question?

I agree with arora1.
I eliminated D based on the fact that "Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills". So no matter how many or how few the number of mills inspected, the ones certified are legit ones. So this statement does not seem to weaken the justification in my opinion.

Experts, can you please advise?

Conclusion : Flyna uses only legalized wood supply from country X.
Premise 1: Flyna set up certification scheme for its lumber mills
Premise 2: Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills.

With this in mind, we will analyze the answer choices.
A. The source of inspectors neither is our concern nor affects the conclusion. Eliminate A.
B. Subsidies is nowhere discussed in the argument. Eliminate B.
C. Does the cost of hiring inspectors affect the claim that wood supply is totally legal? No. Eliminate C.
D. Murky, so keep D.
E. Again, the cost to the government is not our concern. Eliminate E.

My thought process for D:
Flyna uses only lumber, not any other wood. Closely examine the argument. Certification set up was done only for lumber type of woods. But the conclusion is, the country X's wood supply for Flyna is totally legal. Now, the 10% inspection will happen only in lumber mills.
Also, Notice that the beginning of the argument says, most of the furniture manufactured in country X is from local wood. Ideally, certification has to be set up for all type of local wood. So, though the 10% inspection may be sufficient for Lumber, it may not be sufficient for other type of woods.
Put simply, Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Okay, Does it also use pinewood from illegal logging? This may sound awkward, but that is how I thought during 2 min 30 sec.

Any corrections in the above explanation is appreciated.

GMATNinja : Can you please explain why is D preferred over A? D is saying that the audit need not necessarily ensure that all mills are legally compliant while A is saying the same albeit in a different way

Hi

If we are to interpret (A) as saying that "the audit need not necessarily ensure that all mills are legally compliant", then it is necessary to assume that the auditors who are from within Flyna are, either intentionally or otherwise, not doing their jobs correctly. There is nothing in the passage to suggest this differential between internal and external auditors - please keep in mind that as per the stimulus, the auditors are inspecting mills in a foreign country. Hence, it is probable that these are different companies and even auditors internal to Flyna may be "external" auditors for these manufacturing companies in Country X.

Overall, given the above doubts, we cannot be sure that Option (A) sufficiently weakens the argument. Option (D) does so in a much more direct fashion and hence is the better choice.

Hope this helps.

Hi GMATNinja,

I understand that the passage doesn't say that Flyna pays surprise visits to ALL mills that have submitted documents for verification. Also the passage doesn't say that Flyna ONLY certifies mills that it has surprised with a visit.
The above COULD mean that Flyna's staff might have given certifications to mills that haven't been surprised by visits.
However, don't we have to make the above additional assumptions for D to be a valid weakener? Since all D tells us is that Flyna's staff inspects about 10 percent of ALL mills in Country X. It doesn't tell us anything about any mills that exist that are certified but haven't been paid surprise visits. That bit has to be assumed from our side for D to be valid.
Would love to know your thoughts.

Regards,
Udit

Hi Experts.

I have a question on this.

I'm still confused with the OA.

The passage states that "Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills."
And in order to certify mills, Flyna need to make surprise visits to mills to verify documents.
(So it's justified that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.)

From this, I think, it can be inferred that Flyna would not use wood from uncertified mills.
So why do we need to care about those 90% that Flyna still not make surprise visits (as suggested in D) ?

Please help.
Thank you

Hi

The passage does not state that Flyna only uses lumber from mills certified in the last one year. From the information given in the passage, it is a reasonable inference that once certified, Flyna continues to source lumber from that mill till it is de-certified. Given that Flyna only inspects 10% of X's mills in a year, assuming truly randomized selection, each mill should be inspected only on average every ten years or so. So Flyna may be sourcing lumber from a mill which was certified 10 years (or even more) ago. This throws Flyna's claims of sourcing only legally lumbered wood into doubt.

Hope this clarifies.

From what's in the passage, we don't need to infer the Flyna would not use wood from uncertified mills -- we're told that in the sentence that says:

"Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills"

Flyna will only use wood from certified mills BUT how reliable is the certification? That is the part of the argument that (D) works to undermine. (D) tells us:

If only 10% of Country X's lumber mills are inspected each year -- and we know that illegal logging is a problem in Country X. Then how do we know the wood from the other 90% of the mills does not have any association with the illegal loggers?

Similarly, there's nothing to say that a mill that has a certification must have been inspected. Flyna might have given out the certification to mills with the intention of inspecting them in the coming years. We don't know that a certified mill has been inspected this year, last year, or in any year.

There could be several mills that hold the certification but use wood obtained by illegal logging. These mills are just hoping they're not in the 10% randomly selected for inspection that year.

Flyna has created a certification system but may not be inspecting enough mills to ensure its certification scheme does the job it's supposed to. Using this information, we cannot be certain that these mills are supplying legally sourced lumber. Therefore, we cannot verify Flyna's claim that its Country X wood is obtained legally.

This is how (D) undermines the justification provided for Flyna's claim and is why (D) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja
Hi,

In several questions, the correct answer uses sampling techniques and is considered acceptable. So I refrained from choosing D as sampling is an acceptable technique for auditing. I chose answer A instead because if Flyna's inspectors where not from an outside organization we cannot be sure of the correctness of it's claim. But turns out here the sampling techniques is incorrect.

While I am able to understand the explanation offered I am unable to wrap my head around it because I feel a lot of this seems very subjective. Can you please tell me where I am going wrong and in what way I can improve myself.

It's best to treat every CR question individually rather than trying to develop a systems of "rules" based on other CR questions. Here, we're asked to undermine the justification provided for Flyna's claim. (D) does exactly this (as explained here).

We totally understand the impulse to categorize CR questions and develop "shortcuts" that allow you to quickly make eliminations, but the truth is that these shortcuts just don't exist, so attempting to use them will deeply hurt your accuracy. For a broader and more flexible approach to CR, check out this article, and for more on how shortcuts will kill your score, take a look at this video.

I hope that helps a bit!

GMATNinja I was personally thrown off by the "randomly selected" line. The way I thought of it was: "well if they're randomly selected, even though it's 10%, it's unlikely that there's foulplay". Obviously, D is incorrect. However, how can we make sure to not misinterpret phrases like "randomly selected"?

There are a few things to keep in mind in order to avoid the type of mistake that you made on this question. First, be sure to use the author’s words and not your own. The author’s conclusion is NOT that it’s unlikely that Flyna uses illegally sourced wood. Rather, he/she concludes that Flyna is justified in claiming that it uses only lumber from certified mills. While the difference is subtle, those are two very distinct claims.

Additionally, try your best to avoid zeroing in on a particular word or phrase and then creating a story. It’s easy to focus on “randomly selected” and miss the fact that it’s only 10% of Flyna’s lumber mills.

Finally, remember the question that’s being asked. We’re asked which of the answer choices does the MOST to undermine the justification provided for Flyna’s claim. That means we’re not looking for something that disproves their claim. We’re just looking for something that provides reason to doubt it. And we’re looking for the best answer choice (the answer choice that does the MOST to undermine the justification for Flyna’s claim).

So even if I don’t think (D) does a whole lot to undermine the claim, it definitely does the MOST of all the answer choices.

I hope that helps!

The problem i have with choice D is: Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Even if only 10% mills are certified, but Flyna uses wood from only those mills.
That can put D out

You're quite right that Flyna only uses lumber from certified mills, but that's not the EXACT conclusion we're trying to undermine. Rather, we're trying to undermine justification for the claim that Flyna's "Country X wood supply is obtained legally..."

How does the passage justify this claim? We're told that Flyna has hired auditors to "review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin," and that it makes "surprise visits to mills to verify documents." How does (D) impact all that?

Well, if only 10% of Country X's lumber mills have their documents verified each year, the vast majority are NOT having regular inspections. So even if a lumber mill has been certified in the past, if it's one of those 90% that doesn't get an inspection that year, there's no guarantee that its wood is currently legally obtained. So, (D) would undermine the justification for Flyna's claim.

Note that the question hinges on the gap between being certified and actually obtaining lumber legally. If surprise visits are necessary to verify documents, this suggests that Flyna is concerned that some lumber mills MAY be obtaining lumber illegally. But if only 10% of the country's lumber mills are inspected each year, that leaves 90% which COULD currently be using illegal lumber, even if they'd been certified in the past.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja, the argument says that the company makes surprise visits. So even if 10 out of 100 mills are inspected, this inspection is done so without informing the mills. So shouldn't this strengthen our argument? Because by making surprise visits the company is not making a preference of visiting any particular mill. If 10/100 are visited, we can say that there is no reference given to any mill and that all the mills have any equal chance of getting caught

On the other hand (A) says that 2/3 are internally hired. The company has set up its own certification scheme. This 2/3 of this scheme is managed by its own employees. The way I see it, the entire game is in the hands of Flyna. So even if the company claims that the wood is legal because it is all verified and certified, the fact that (most of) this entire process is controled by the company does throw some doubt of trusting the claim. Yes, we need to assume that there is a possibility that the company/employees aren't 100% diligent. BUT I believe this is something very practical to assume event though nothing is mentioned in the argument

The right answer is the one that "most undermines" Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally.

Let's start with (A):


So what impact does this have on Flyna's claim?

Keep in mind: all of the inspectors are CURRENTLY employees of Flyna. So if Flyna pressures its employees to give false reports, then all the inspectors would be equally affected, whether they were hired from inside or outside the company. So the number of inspectors that were hired from inside the company wouldn't be relevant.

Thinking about this from another angle: why would Flyna want its inspectors to give dishonest reports about lumber mills in the first place? Presumably, they are making an effort to use legally obtained lumber, so it's unclear why they would pressure their inspectors to lie. We could certainly imagine a scenario where Flyna would want its inspectors to lie, but that would require some pretty big leaps.

Finally, notice the above reasoning strays rather far from the exact wording of the answer choice. In other words, to even make (A) relevant, we'd need to make a whole host of assumptions about how Flyna treats its inspectors, and what it's hoping to get from inspections. And if we need to make assumptions to justify an answer choice, that's a sign it's not the right answer.

For all those reasons, let's get rid of (A).

How about (D)?


From this, we know that 90% of Country X's lumber mills are not inspected each year. Thus, for the vast majority of the mills Flyna uses, we have no guarantee that the lumber is obtained legally.

As you correctly point out, since the inspections are random, "all the mills have an equal chance of getting caught." But does this guarantee that none of the mills will use illegal lumber?

Not at all. To conclude that, we'd need to make a pretty big assumption about how the lumber mills behave. In other words, we'd need to assume that none of them cheat, and that the fear of inspection is enough to ensure compliance. So because this argument against (D) requires some big assumptions, it's not a good reason to reject it.

On the other hand, we don't need to make any assumptions about (D) to conclude that the vast majority of the lumber mills will not be inspected any given year. For that reason, (D) undermines the conclusion that Flyna's wood supply is legally obtained.

I hope that helps!