Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
12 Aug 2019, 11:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
I chose D and not C and my reasoning was that the sample must be representative of the actual population.
D says that - In the sample, it might very well be the case that those 10% are responsible for 50% of the fraudulent cases (even monetarily) but if in the real world those 10% actually accounted for only 1%. Then, of course, they wouldn't be responsible for the "MAJORITY" of the cases.
Yes, it is important to know the average tax fraud they commit if even if you do know the average fraud they commit, it is impossible to say that they are responsible for the majority of the tax fraud without knowing their representation in the real world.
I don't know - I don't think the GMAT would draft such a question. At least I hope not. In any case, I would like to know where I am off with my thought process.
Thanks
Anudeep
D says that - In the sample, it might very well be the case that those 10% are responsible for 50% of the fraudulent cases (even monetarily) but if in the real world those 10% actually accounted for only 1%. Then, of course, they wouldn't be responsible for the "MAJORITY" of the cases.
Yes, it is important to know the average tax fraud they commit if even if you do know the average fraud they commit, it is impossible to say that they are responsible for the majority of the tax fraud without knowing their representation in the real world.
I don't know - I don't think the GMAT would draft such a question. At least I hope not. In any case, I would like to know where I am off with my thought process.
Thanks
Anudeep
12 Aug 2019, 11:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
egmat
I chose D and not C and my reasoning was that the sample must be representative of the actual population.
In the sample, it might very well be the case that those 10% are responsible for 50% of the fraudulent cases (even monetarily) but if in the real world those 10% actually accounted for only 1%. Then, of course, they wouldn't be responsible for the "MAJORITY" of the cases.
Yes, it is important to know the average tax fraud they commit but then, even if you do know the average fraud they commit, it is impossible to say that they are responsible for the majority of the tax fraud without knowing their representation in the real world.
I don't know - I don't think the GMAT would draft such a question. At least I hope not. In any case, I would like to know where I am off with my thought process.
AjiteshArun, daagh, Magoosh, GMATNinja
Thanks
Anudeep
13 Aug 2019, 02:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Anud
Let's look at it this way. The 10% and 50% figures are just ratios and do not help us much. After all if 1000 SMEs dodge tax to the extent of , say, 2000 crores, this is just a fraction of two jewelers defrauding the county for more than 20,000 crores. Therefore, to know the extent of loss, we must be able to convert all the percentages to absolute money. For that sake, we need a bridge that gives the average fraud money by these swindlers and we can now multiply this average by the total number of people indulging in the scandal. Choice C gives this bridge.
All other things that do not focus on arriving at the quantum of absolute money are out of scope. Aren't they?
I think a reasonably sample is good enough to know the trend and extrapolate to a larger scale. A national sample may not be required. Now that we know who the culprits are, we can squeeze them to make them pay up the due tax together with penal fines. This is the rationale behind this question IMO.
Let's look at it this way. The 10% and 50% figures are just ratios and do not help us much. After all if 1000 SMEs dodge tax to the extent of , say, 2000 crores, this is just a fraction of two jewelers defrauding the county for more than 20,000 crores. Therefore, to know the extent of loss, we must be able to convert all the percentages to absolute money. For that sake, we need a bridge that gives the average fraud money by these swindlers and we can now multiply this average by the total number of people indulging in the scandal. Choice C gives this bridge.
All other things that do not focus on arriving at the quantum of absolute money are out of scope. Aren't they?
I think a reasonably sample is good enough to know the trend and extrapolate to a larger scale. A national sample may not be required. Now that we know who the culprits are, we can squeeze them to make them pay up the due tax together with penal fines. This is the rationale behind this question IMO.
