Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

It is currently 25 May 2017, 19:12

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

#Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1352
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 678 [4] , given: 10

Reviews Badge
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2008, 08:33
4
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:45) correct 41% (01:47) wrong based on 82 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

(B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

(D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.

(E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 27 Apr 2017, 07:04, edited 3 times in total.
OA updated. GMAT Prep Q
Request Expert Reply
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2008, 08:39
My answer is A.
Don't know how to explain it though, it seems more or less obvious to me :?
hopefully i'm not wrong! :|

Curious, which study material is this from?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 787
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2008, 13:28
A too
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

Premium Member
Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2008, 19:35
goalsnr wrote:
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries
, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
. Many policyholders will respond
to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will
within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars
with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual
payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.


Discuss your approach to solve this CR.


1. The first boldface is a consideration, so A, B and D out
2. The second boldface is NOT a main conclusion, so E out

C
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [1] , given: 3

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2008, 05:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! :twisted:
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3363
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 297 [0], given: 2

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2008, 13:53
i think A is best..

all others just dont make sense...
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1352
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 678 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2008, 15:45
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
[quote="zoltan"]I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! :twisted:[/quote

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.
Thats teh whole purpose of this thread. For bold face CRs thi sis teh strategy I use:
1. I pick one of the bold statements- Usually the one I understand clearly.
2. I go through the answers choices and eliminate choices which donot adhere to the statement. For example the statement could serve as an evidence, assumption or conclusion in the argument. I use this knowledge as the basis to eliminate answer choices.
3. I repeat step 2 with other statement.

Most of the times this approach works for me.


Gmatnub, Sinha, sondeso...do you guys want to explain your approach too?
1 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [1] , given: 1

Premium Member
Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2008, 18:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
zoltan wrote:
I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! :twisted:



goalsnr wrote:
Gmatnub, Sinha, sondeso...do you guys want to explain your approach too?


You should go dig the forum "New to this forum". I think, this stuff is useful. For example, you know what is "consideration", what is "evidence"....
There are some tips useful too.

For the boldface, the first and the key is "Should find out exactly what is the [main] conclusion"

I go to the New to Verbal Forum, copy and past here!

Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background:
Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 3

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2008, 05:05
Thanks for your help.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 302
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 3

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2008, 05:12
Thanks for your help.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 74
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 3

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2009, 21:24
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

(B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

(D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.

(E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 21

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2009, 22:42
ankur55 wrote:
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries,
so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices.
Many policyholders will respond
to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will
within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars
with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual
payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.



First sentence tell you the limit to achieve certain goal.

Which coincides with Option A.

Second sentence suggests alternate plan. After second sentence the plan is elaborated & reasoned.

Which also coincides with Option A. :D

Hope I am right. :|
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 791
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 85

Kudos [?]: 817 [0], given: 56

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2009, 22:54
Tricky question. I would opt A, though some other options also looks quite tempting.

The argument is talking about two strategies to reduce the payout:
1st, by changing the car-theft policies, which is not possible
2nd, by encouraging policyholders to install anti-theft device
Based on this the argument is giving the conclusion to opt for 2nd strategy.

Please note, this is not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line "Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts."

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses. -Correct
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion. -First is not a judgment to support 2nd, rather both are different strategies.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish. -2nd is a sub-conclusion, and not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line.
_________________

ISB 2011-12 thread | Ask ISB Alumni @ ThinkISB
All information related to Indian candidates and B-schools | Indian B-schools accepting GMAT scores
Self evaluation for Why MBA?

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 882
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 704 [0], given: 18

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2009, 23:13
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way.

Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
.

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 11

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2009, 00:15
+1 for C.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 74
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 3

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2009, 00:54
irajeevsingh wrote:
+1 for C.


I also chose C, however OA is A
More explanations pls
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 882
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 704 [0], given: 18

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2009, 01:07
ankur55 wrote:
irajeevsingh wrote:
+1 for C.


I also chose C, however OA is A
More explanations pls

:( It is touch and go. The only thing that might make A stronger is:
"and whose effectiveness the argument assesses"...this is what the rest of the argument does.

Question to be noted, lets see if we get something similar..if yes then we can conclude that answers that encompass the argument are considered a better choice for boldfaced :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 21

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2009, 03:04
Economist wrote:
[color=#FF0000][b]
Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.


The correct answer is A.

I think people who marked C, did not understand this type of question properly. (No offence)

We are supposed to find the 'Role' of the sentence. Even though 'blue part' is not bold, it is still there in given abstract. The first bold part gives you the reason that strategy will not work. 'blue part' is merely a sentence which states that 'strategy is ruled out'. It is the red part that reasons.
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2009, 13:26
Economist wrote:
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way.

Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
.

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.


Brand new here (this forum and the accompnaying community are great BTW) but thought I would chime in. C is wrong because of two words:

1.) "support" - If the "certain strategy" is to reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, the first is then a consideration against adopting that strategy, not in support of it.

2.) "alternative" - Alternatively (no pun intended), if you interpret the first as a consideration in "support" of the "certain strategy" of offering discounts for customers who install anti-theft devices (which, at least to me, seems plausible), then the decision would not be for an alternative strategy.

Hope the questions keep coming - this is great practice.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 62
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

Reviews Badge
Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2014, 09:47
Hi E-GMAT,


During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were
larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of
car-theft policies it carries,
so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that
way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft
policies whose cars have antitheft devices.
Many policyholders will respond to the
discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years
typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are
rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. In the argument above,
the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that
was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving
a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the
second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the
second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.


Lets Break this sentence.

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were
larger than the company can afford to sustain. Author opinion

Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries,...Author judgment

so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. conclusion based on Author judgment.


Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Author plan/decision.

Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Author prediction/supporting statement.

Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. Main conclusion.


So First in the BOLD statement, Could you please explain, How come a first bold statement support adopting a certain statergy ,which statergy we are talking about? .

The only statergy i can see is the Second bold statement. just by saying the company can't reduce the number of the policies,dosent mean its support adopting a certain statergy.


Please through some light on this.

Thanks

Nitin
Re: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total   [#permalink] 05 May 2014, 09:47

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total souvik101990 0 29 Mar 2017, 07:38
23 During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total arorag 16 15 Jan 2016, 02:53
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total ankur55 0 29 Aug 2016, 04:05
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total arorag 0 15 Jan 2016, 02:53
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company s total goalsnr 0 19 Oct 2016, 23:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

#Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.