Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 22 Jul 2019, 21:58

### 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

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

# The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 754
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2019, 22:33
1
2
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:32) correct 34% (01:45) wrong based on 231 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources for his own personal gains. In the past one year, the mining company has invested in 13 mines in Djboutin, the country of birth of the CEO. The CEO has also mentioned in several interviews that, at a later point in his career, he plans to stand for the Presidency of Djboutin.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument depends on?
(A) The investments in the mines in Djboutin make good business sense.
(B) It is cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
(C) To conduct mining operations in Djboutin will require heavy investment in a particular type of machinery that will not be of any use in the mining company’s mines in other countries.
(D) It is not the Board of Directors of the mining company that decides which mines to invest in.
(E) There is no unforeseen event in the future that will dissuade the CEO from standing for the Presidency of Djboutin.

_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if you like my post pls!
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 169
The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2019, 01:53
1
Quote:
(D) It is not the Board of Directors of the mining company that decides which mines to invest in.

Try Negating:

D. It is the Board of Directors of the mining company that decide which mines to invest in.

If so, then the claim that the CEO is using the resources for his personal gains is contradicted. May be the board of directors consider the investment a profitable investment and it just so happens that the CEO was born there and will be running for presidency. Thus, negating the statement destroys the argument.

Hence option D is the correct answer.
_________________
Hit Kudos to keep the community alive !
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2018
Posts: 9
Re: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2019, 00:41
Quote:
(B) It is cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.

can anybody help me with B.
Why is B not correct?
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 169
The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2019, 00:53
1
1
santoshkhatri wrote:
Quote:
(B) It is cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.

can anybody help me with B.
Why is B not correct?

Sure.

In assumption questions, try to negate the answer choices. If after negating an answer choice the argument falls apart then that is the assumption the argument stands on.

In option B. Try negation:

B. It is not cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
This basically strengthens the argument. It says that CEO is investing in Djboutin even when it is not cheaper than other places, therefore he must have a personal interest. Argument strengthened.

What we look for in our choices after negation is a statement that undermines the argument, not strengthen it. As option D does. (refer to my earlier post)

Another way to look at it would be:
If it was cheaper to invest in Djboutin, then the CEO was doing the right thing. So what's the fuss about? He is doing the right thing, without any personal interest. People should have no problem.
But as per the argument, people apparently do have problem and think that he is doing it for the wrong reasons.
Probably, it is being assumed that it more expensive to invest in Djboutin.

Hope it helps.
_________________
Hit Kudos to keep the community alive !
Intern
Joined: 25 May 2019
Posts: 5
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
Re: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2019, 04:41
4
Can anybody say the problem with E?
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2018
Posts: 11
The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2019, 05:05
Aynur1 wrote:
Can anybody say the problem with E?

After POE I was left with D and E as well but I chose D, though I had a lot of doubts whether E could be the answer. Any expert or anyone else can please help shed some light on this question? ( nightblade354 gmat1393 GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo )
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 169
Re: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2019, 05:44
1
Aynur1 wrote:
Can anybody say the problem with E?

Conclusion: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources for his own personal gains.
Premise: In the past one year, the mining company has invested in 13 mines in Djboutin, the country of birth of the CEO.
Premise: The CEO has also mentioned in several interviews that, at a later point in his career, he plans to stand for the Presidency of Djboutin.

Assumption: Something that will help us arrive at the conclusion by filling a gap in the argument's reasoning. Negating the argument should undermine the argument, i.e. the argument should fall apart.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument depends on?

(A) The investments in the mines in Djboutin make good business sense.
Negating: The investments in the mines in Djboutin do not make good business sense.
Negating A strengthens the argument further by saying that the financial reason is not sound and some other reason must be at play (eg- personal gains).

(B) It is cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
It is not cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
Similar to A, negating B also strengthens the argument. Refer to my earlier post.

(C) To conduct mining operations in Djboutin will require heavy investment in a particular type of machinery that will not be of any use in the mining company’s mines in other countries.
Heavy investment or the machines not being re-used does not mean that the investment is for personal gains. May be the profits will take care of the machines and the investment, in which case good business sense will prevail.

(D) It is not the Board of Directors of the mining company that decides which mines to invest in.
It is the Board of Directors of the mining company that decide which mines to invest in.

If so, then the claim that the CEO is using the resources for his personal gains is contradicted. May be the board of directors consider the investment a profitable investment and it just so happens that the CEO was born there and will be running for presidency. Thus, negating the statement destroys the argument.
Correct.

(E) There is no unforeseen event in the future that will dissuade the CEO from standing for the Presidency of Djboutin.
There is some unforeseen event in the future that will dissuade the CEO from standing for the Presidency of Djboutin.
Option E does help us to arrive at our current conclusion. As a matter of fact, it does not affect our argument at all.
Two scenarios:
i) CEO runs for Presidency.
ii) CEO doesn't run for Presidency.
Either way, he could have have been using the resources for his personal gains. In case (ii), may be he had been using the resources for personal gains (for the election) but then changed his mind.
_________________
Hit Kudos to keep the community alive !
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2018
Posts: 11
Re: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2019, 05:46
GmatMinion wrote:
Aynur1 wrote:
Can anybody say the problem with E?

Conclusion: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources for his own personal gains.
Premise: In the past one year, the mining company has invested in 13 mines in Djboutin, the country of birth of the CEO.
Premise: The CEO has also mentioned in several interviews that, at a later point in his career, he plans to stand for the Presidency of Djboutin.

Assumption: Something that will help us arrive at the conclusion by filling a gap in the argument's reasoning. Negating the argument should undermine the argument, i.e. the argument should fall apart.

Which of the following is an assumption that the argument depends on?

(A) The investments in the mines in Djboutin make good business sense.
Negating: The investments in the mines in Djboutin do not make good business sense.
Negating A strengthens the argument further by saying that the financial reason is not sound and some other reason must be at play (eg- personal gains).

(B) It is cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
It is not cheaper to conduct mining operations in Djboutin than in most other countries that the mining company operates in.
Similar to A, negating B also strengthens the argument. Refer to my earlier post.

(C) To conduct mining operations in Djboutin will require heavy investment in a particular type of machinery that will not be of any use in the mining company’s mines in other countries.
Heavy investment or the machines not being re-used does not mean that the investment is for personal gains. May be the profits will take care of the machines and the investment, in which case good business sense will prevail.

(D) It is not the Board of Directors of the mining company that decides which mines to invest in.
It is the Board of Directors of the mining company that decide which mines to invest in.

If so, then the claim that the CEO is using the resources for his personal gains is contradicted. May be the board of directors consider the investment a profitable investment and it just so happens that the CEO was born there and will be running for presidency. Thus, negating the statement destroys the argument.
Correct.

(E) There is no unforeseen event in the future that will dissuade the CEO from standing for the Presidency of Djboutin.
There is some unforeseen event in the future that will dissuade the CEO from standing for the Presidency of Djboutin.
Option E does help us to arrive at our current conclusion. As a matter of fact, it does not affect our argument at all.
Two scenarios:
i) CEO runs for Presidency.
ii) CEO doesn't run for Presidency.
Either way, he could have have been using the resources for his personal gains. In case (ii), may be he had been using the resources for personal gains (for the election) but then changed his mind.

Thank you very much GmatMinion !
Re: The CEO of the mining company has been using the company’s resources..   [#permalink] 18 Jun 2019, 05:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by