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

 It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 15:16

### 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 lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1224
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2015, 04:12
7
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:32) correct 35% (01:45) wrong based on 367 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.

_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1100
Location: India
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2015, 06:40
1
statement 1; When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator.
statement 2: Immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support. This does not define the flaw.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.This is no time relationship here
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims. There is no such confusion.

Harley1980, can u just tell me whether i defined the reason behind eliminating option D correctly.
I just got confused between B and D and selected B first time.
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 151
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2015, 07:37
[quote="Mechmeera"]statement 1; When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator.
statement 2: Immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support. This does not define the flaw.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.This is no time relationship here
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.[color=#790000]They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.[/

Evidence 1. : No money

Evidence 2 : Had money but expended.

Both are contradictory. No conclusions are same.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1224
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2015, 10:38
Mechmeera wrote:
statement 1; When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator.
statement 2: Immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support. This does not define the flaw.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.This is no time relationship here
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims. There is no such confusion.

Harley1980, can u just tell me whether i defined the reason behind eliminating option D correctly.
I just got confused between B and D and selected B first time.

Hello Mechmeera

D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.

Both pieces of evidence support the conclusion and answer D says that both pieces are not support the same conclusion
That is why D is wrong.
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1100
Location: India
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2015, 12:42
Harley1980 wrote:
Mechmeera wrote:
statement 1; When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator.
statement 2: Immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support. This does not define the flaw.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.This is no time relationship here
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims. There is no such confusion.

Harley1980, can u just tell me whether i defined the reason behind eliminating option D correctly.
I just got confused between B and D and selected B first time.

Hello Mechmeera

D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.They support same conclusion no money at the end of the day.

Both pieces of evidence support the conclusion and answer D says that both pieces are not support the same conclusion
That is why D is wrong.

Now I got it.
Thanks Harley1980.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 06:54
this question contains a common pattern in gmat.
"spent all cash" >< "carry no cash". There are key words.
E is closed, but E is a distractor. Why? It is because bribery is both a financial matter and a legal matter; thus, there should be no confusion here.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2018, 08:28

Official Explanation

The lobbyist presents a self-contradictory argument. He says

I. he left the house with no money

II. he spent all his cash on lunch

If he truly left the house with no money, he would not have had cash to spend on lunch. Both of these statements can't be true simultaneously. Yet, both of them are presented as evidence to the claim "I didn't bribe the senator."

(B) is the credited answer. Two pieces of evidence contradict each other. That's precisely the problem with this argument.

(A) is not correct. The conclusion, "I could not have bribed the senator" is not paraphrase of anything said previously in the argument.

(C) is not correct; there is no problem with time relationship --- leaving house, then having lunch, then seeing the senator. The "effect" for which he is arguing happens last, and the reputed causes happen before it: that is the proper time sequence for a causal chain.

(D) is not correct; each piece of evidence, by itself, would support the conclusion; they just contradict each other.

(E) is a wonderful distractor. Here, bribery is both a financial matter and a legal matter, so there is no confusion: consideration from both the financial and the legal spheres are appropriate.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Re: The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator   [#permalink] 07 Aug 2018, 08:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by