Bunuel wrote:
Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrongdoing. Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?
A. Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.
D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.
Happy New Year Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada
Guyana, Netherlands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten), Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Virgin Islands and Venezuela!Dec 31 Event: GMAT Club Around The World!(38 new questions posted every hour time zone on Dec 31!)
Charities to scrutinize donations for financial wrongdoing ten percent donors expected to be disqualified one-third of donors with financial malpractice will not be identified five percent of all donors will provide unethically sourced money
Missing-link: Not needed
Expectation from the correct answer choice: To be duly deducible from the information in the passage, without any assumption or extrapolation
A. Trap. The argument is concerned with charities’ scrutiny identifying donors with financial maleficence and not with incidents of financial maleficence in general; so, this answer choice cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.
B. Correct. The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations, or, in other words, in the amount of money available to charities, as the answer choice mentions. Because this answer choice is deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is correct.
C. The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations; this answer choice, suggesting “fluctuations” in funding, indicates possible increase or decrease, and can only be partially established; this answer choice can stay after the first glance but shall eventually make way for a better, stronger answer choice; we have a more convincing answer choice in B.
D. The argument mentions that the scrutiny is expected to disqualify ten percent of all prospective donors, suggesting a decline in accepted donations; however, the argument makes no suggestions regarding the purpose of donations; so, this answer choice, suggesting that donations made with the sole purpose of benefitting the donor will become rarer, cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.
E. Trap. The argument mentions charities’ scrutiny and its impact on “donors with financial malpractice” but makes no suggestion regarding the scrutiny’s impact on “potential first-time donors”; so, this answer choice, suggesting an impact, cannot be established. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.
B is the best choice.
close
31 Dec 2021, 21:00
49%
(02:27)
wrong 
