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 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
16 Sep 2014, 02:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the "Big Four" firms into smaller operations, so that for non-audit services corporations will have significantly more options than they have now.
Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?
A. The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
B. CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
C. Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
D. The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
E. Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section.
Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?
A. The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
B. CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
C. Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
D. The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
E. Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section.
16 Sep 2014, 02:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the "Big Four" firms into smaller operations, so that for non-audit services corporations will have significantly more options than they have now.
Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?
A. The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
B. CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
C. Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
D. The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
E. Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section.
Premise (X): break-up the “Big Four” Firms into smaller operations Conclusion (Y): corporations will have more options for their accounting needs As usual, for an assumption question, it is often effective to negate a choice and examine whether the argument X —> Y thereby breaks down. If negation of a choice breaks down the argument, then the choice must be an underlying assumption. Negating option E leads to the following statement: Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section. Let us examine what happens when each of the firms is broken into an audit and a non-audit section: Before break-up: A corporation needs to take up 2 types of services: A. audit services, B. non-audit services. Suppose, before breaking up, the four players (accounting firms) were P1, P2, P3 and P4. Hence the corporation had 4 choices for carrying out each of A (audit services) and B (non-audit services) : P1, P2, P3 and P4. After break-up: Now taking negation of option E as basis, each player breaks up into an audit and a non-audit sections. P1 breaks into P1a and P1b (the ending letter a denotes an audit firm and b denotes a non-audit firm), So the 8 players after break-up are P1a, P1b, P2a, P2b, P3a, P3b, P4a and P4b . Now suppose the corporation wants to carry out audit service - it still has 4 options: P1a, P2a, P3a and P4a. The same is true for non-audit services as well - the corporation still has 4 options: P1b, P2b, P3b and P4b. Thus, the corporations will NOT have more options for their accounting needs (= negative of conclusion Y) by breaking up each player into an audit and a non-audit section ( = negative of option E). Thus, negating option E breaks down the argument X—> Y and hence is the correct answer.
Answer: E
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the "Big Four" firms into smaller operations, so that for non-audit services corporations will have significantly more options than they have now.
Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?
A. The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
B. CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
C. Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
D. The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
E. Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section.
Premise (X): break-up the “Big Four” Firms into smaller operations Conclusion (Y): corporations will have more options for their accounting needs As usual, for an assumption question, it is often effective to negate a choice and examine whether the argument X —> Y thereby breaks down. If negation of a choice breaks down the argument, then the choice must be an underlying assumption. Negating option E leads to the following statement: Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section. Let us examine what happens when each of the firms is broken into an audit and a non-audit section: Before break-up: A corporation needs to take up 2 types of services: A. audit services, B. non-audit services. Suppose, before breaking up, the four players (accounting firms) were P1, P2, P3 and P4. Hence the corporation had 4 choices for carrying out each of A (audit services) and B (non-audit services) : P1, P2, P3 and P4. After break-up: Now taking negation of option E as basis, each player breaks up into an audit and a non-audit sections. P1 breaks into P1a and P1b (the ending letter a denotes an audit firm and b denotes a non-audit firm), So the 8 players after break-up are P1a, P1b, P2a, P2b, P3a, P3b, P4a and P4b . Now suppose the corporation wants to carry out audit service - it still has 4 options: P1a, P2a, P3a and P4a. The same is true for non-audit services as well - the corporation still has 4 options: P1b, P2b, P3b and P4b. Thus, the corporations will NOT have more options for their accounting needs (= negative of conclusion Y) by breaking up each player into an audit and a non-audit section ( = negative of option E). Thus, negating option E breaks down the argument X—> Y and hence is the correct answer.
Answer: E
22 Oct 2016, 06:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Completely baffled by this. I think that option E if correct should be exactly opposite of what it is stating. Shouldn't breaking all the 4 big four companies lead to more variety in accounting services, as beautifully explained by ThangLe ? But the option E states that Each of the Big Four firms should not be broken into an audit and a non-audit section. Can someone please clarify this?
