A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax

Question

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax reports were selected at random for an audit, 21% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. However, among those whose audits uncovered indications of potential tax fraud, only 3% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. Clearly, citizens of Patria who prepare their taxes without the assistance of a tax accountant are more likely to commit tax fraud.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Citizens who commit tax fraud with the assistance of a tax accountant are less likely to caught by an audit.
B. Citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are more likely to commit tax fraud than those whose records do not.
C. Tax accountants will ensure that their clients file taxes that are not fraudulent.
D. Some citizens who choose to prepare their taxes without the assistance of a account do so in order to conceal tax fraud.
E. Citizens who prepare their taxes with the assistance of an accountant do so in order to avoid accidentally committing tax fraud.

I am looking for some expert's opinion/take on this question.
 It would be great if anyone can please help me with this one.
I am not sure from where "indications of potential tax fraud" is coming into picture in the correct one. 
Thank you very much.

nks2611 · Answer

expert 
 please tell me the reasoning behind the correct answer , although i precisely eliminated option C and E , but stuck in A and D , but i were shocked after looking at the correct answer B, in option A i tried negation test and seems the conclusion does not stand and also in D some can be negated with none also this makes sense to me , do not where i am wrong .

please make it understandable 
thanks 
please make it understandable

goforgmat · Answer

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax reports were selected at random for an audit, 21% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. However, among those whose audits uncovered indications of potential tax fraud, only 3% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. Clearly, citizens of Patria who prepare their taxes without the assistance of a tax accountant are more likely to commit tax fraud.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Citizens who commit tax fraud with the assistance of a tax accountant are less likely to caught by an audit.
B. Citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are more likely to commit tax fraud than those whose records do not.
C. Tax accountants will ensure that their clients file taxes that are not fraudulent.
D. Some citizens who choose to prepare their taxes without the assistance of a account do so in order to conceal tax fraud.
E. Citizens who prepare their taxes with the assistance of an accountant do so in order to avoid accidentally committing tax fraud.

My take on this :

Conclusion: Citizens of Patria who prepare their taxes without the assistance of a tax accountant are more likely to commit tax fraud.
In order to find an assumption we need to find an option that when negated shatters it.
 Linkage : 
The argument talks about the scenario where in they have a list of users who could have committed the falsification.
What about the ones who are not detected to have been in that list.
It could be possible that there are users who are not detected but who have committed the falsification of tax records.
3% of the ones detected took help to prepare tax records. so the argument assumes the remaining 97% in the list didn't take help.
Notice how the conclusion talks about people in general not the ones in the list.
If such cases exist we can't say that the conclusion will be true.
So assumption must be the opposite i.e., option B

nks2611 · Answer

hi ,
 not convinced much by your elaboration can explain further means as what i have asked can you make me understand by options 
thanks

RMD007 · Answer

However I selected wrong choice, I can explain POE in following way - 1. Out of 100, 21 prepared taxes with the help of tax accountant. 2. Say 50 people, uncovered indications of potential tax fraud, 3%(~1.2 say 2 people) used tax consultant. Conclusion - 48 people (who did not use tax consultant) are more likely to commit tax fraud. So the conclusion is explicitly talking about people who did not use tax accountant. (Option A, C & E out) D: If people are not deliberately using accountants to conceal tax fraud, their accounts should not indicate potential tax fraud. Only B stands. But its difficult to defend B alone.

nks2611 · Answer

Hii, 
 RMD007, 
MY APPROACH WAS THE SAME AS YOU HAVE USED HERE?, BUT HOW WE ELIMINATE (D) ,

Sent from my HM 1S using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

abhimahna · Answer

I solved this question by POE and got the correct answer in 1 min and 20 secs.

We are given

21% of all tax reports used the assistance of a tax accountant.

Among Fraud Cases: 3% used Tax Accountant.

Conclusion: Without the assistance people are more likely to commit tax fraud.

We need to find the assumption.

A. Citizens who commit tax fraud with the assistance of a tax accountant are less likely to caught by an audit.  : How can we say they are less likely to be caught? May be the mechanism is too strong that what it has detected is 100% valid. So, this is INCORRECT. 
B. Citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are more likely to commit tax fraud than those whose records do not.  Wait, I am not sure what it is saying. I will come on this later 
C. Tax accountants will ensure that their clients file taxes that are not fraudulent.  No, this is highly abrupt answer choice. Aren't we biased and saying they have selected people because they were not fraud? 
D. Some citizens who choose to prepare their taxes without the assistance of a account do so in order to conceal tax fraud.  : Is it really so? So, we are saying people are not selecting accountants because they want to be biased. INCORRECT. We cannot run on our own assumptions. This means we are rejecting the Facts. 
E. Citizens who prepare their taxes with the assistance of an accountant do so in order to avoid accidentally committing tax fraud.  Again, an Invalid case. We cannot assume this on our own to straighten the point that the survey is biased and people have done this intentionally .

Ok, now we are left with only B, it MUST be the answer.

Let me know in case of any confusion.

IshanVirdhi · Answer

Hi Lets use negation

Stimulus says that more instances (as a percentage) of potential tax frauds translates to greater tendency for committing fraud. Now the gap is between "potential fraud indications" and actual fraud, which option B bridges.

A. Citizens who commit tax fraud with the assistance of a tax accountant are less likely to caught by an audit. - This is just the opposite of the required assumption. If this were true then, it would imply that citizens who use accountants also commit fraud (but they are not caught)
B. Citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are more likely to commit tax fraud than those whose records do not. - explained
C. Tax accountants will ensure that their clients file taxes that are not fraudulent. - This is not a required assumption. If this is not true, even then the argument holds. What if the citizens who use accountants ensure that they don't commit fraud, not the accountants.
D. Some citizens who choose to prepare their taxes without the assistance of a account do so in order to conceal tax fraud. - This is not a required assumption. What if they choose not to involve an accountant because of some other reason, lets say their don't want to spend extra bucks. That doesn't affect their tendency to commit fraud.
E. Citizens who prepare their taxes with the assistance of an accountant do so in order to avoid accidentally committing tax fraud. - Similar reasoning as in option D

AdityaHongunti · Answer

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax reports were selected at random for an audit, 21% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. However, among those whose audits uncovered indications of potential tax fraud, only 3% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. Clearly, citizens of Patria who prepare their taxes without the assistance of a tax accountant are more likely to commit tax fraud.

The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Citizens who commit tax fraud with the assistance of a tax accountant are less likely to caught by an audit.
B. Citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are more likely to commit tax fraud than those whose records do not.
C. Tax accountants will ensure that their clients file taxes that are not fraudulent.
D. Some citizens who choose to prepare their taxes without the assistance of a account do so in order to conceal tax fraud.
E. Citizens who prepare their taxes with the assistance of an accountant do so in order to avoid accidentally committing tax fraud.

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax reports were selected at random for an audit, 21% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. However, among those whose audits uncovered indications of potential tax fraud, only 3% had prepared their taxes with the assistance of a tax accountant. Clearly, citizens of Patria who prepare their taxes without the assistance of a tax accountant are more likely to commit tax fraud.
Understand :
1) 100 citizs of P : 21 audited with auditor
2) assune (X) of 100 citizs = potential fraud 
3)3% of (X) = potential fraud + auditor

cocmslusion : No auditor = tax fruad

Reasoning: There is a COMPARISON between people with auditors and ppl without. Now the authorjust tells us that 3% used auditirs but did the rest of (x) use audtors? if they did then the conclusion { no auditor= tax fraud } does not hold becuase in botn the cases with or wothiut the auditor tax fraud is still there. thats it.

{ Note : There are few main types of GMAT CR PATTERNS on which GMAT PLAYS
1) logical gap : premise is about A . concusion is about B. >>> assumption A and B are linked
2) Comparison : data about two or three groups . Conslusion about 1 group. >> Always think about other groups which are not in conclusion. (This is the case here )
3) Generalisation : talks about a part , consludes about whole >> ASSUMPTION - part represnts whole 
}

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation Reading the question: we're given an argument to pick apart. Term matching is a good candidate for any argument, but especially pseudo-syllogistic arguments such as this one, so we can create our filter by looking for a mismatch of terms: https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=50064 Creating a filter: the first two rows highlight the same basic point, which is that, if the study has been conducted in a way such that it is not representative of the population of Patria as a whole, then the audit would be questionable. However, we've been told that the citizens selected for the audit were selected "at random," so they are most likely representative of the population. The most basic mismatch is the final one: the term in the conclusion "more likely to commit tax fraud" matches up imprecisely with the concept in the evidence "indications of potential tax fraud." For example, maybe it's typical to demonstrate indications of tax fraud and not commit fraud; maybe the indications are poor predictors overall of whether these people are actually committing the tax fraud more. There's our filter. Applying the filter: we look for an answer choice that expresses this connection and find (B). Logical proof: we can use the negation test to see whether (B) is critical to the argument. What if citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are not at all more likely to commit tax fraud? Indeed, then the argument collapses, the higher incidence of these indications then would not constitute evidence of a higher rate of tax fraud in any group. The correct answer is (B). image022.jpg

dhruvasv5 · Answer

The conclusion is pretty straightforward- Citizens who prepare taxes on their own are more like to have committed fraud.
But the argument identifies those individuals to have a potential tax fraud. By negating B- If those citizens are not likely to have committed fraud, then conclusion breaks. Hence, B is correct.

thinkvision · Answer

nehasomani33  - Could you please help on this?

nehasomani33 · Answer

thinkvision

Assumption should be such that, if it is negated, the conclusion will become invalid.

Here, if we see that the indicators of the fraud are not really very substantive, then it may lead to wrong data result. So in this case, if the indicators of the fraud are not correctly capturing the fraudulent cases, then this 3% data may be incorrect. Also it might lead to an interpretation that fraudulent cases (which were prepared by the accountant) were not really captured, resulting into smaller percent of fraud case (prepared by accountant).

Hope this helps!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A study this year found that, among citizens of Patria whose tax

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards