Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of

Question

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of Ploutos National Bank, recently apprehended a ring of seven embezzlers from among the bank's employees. The bank management decided to call in the federal investigators when they were unable to account for millions of dollars missing in their budget for this year. All the funds those seven individuals embezzled have been returned to the bank, and that accounts for about two thirds of the total amount missing. All seven of the accused have plea-bargained to avoid trial and are now serving in prison on reduced sentences.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) The Ploutos National Bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by Federal investigators.

(B) In the past, no employee had ever embezzled funds from Ploutos National Bank

(C) Federal investigators have the means at their disposal to detect any large illegal transfers of money.

(D) The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained.

(E) In initiating a federal investigation of their own company, the managers of Ploutos National Bank were subject to no fees from the federal government.

thepragyasingh · Answer

i think the answer should be D as it says in the end - that they are now serving in prison on reduced sentences. i mean its just how i think and i am not an expert so lets just wait for the answer.

Solenja · Answer

Is the answer option A (correct me if I'm wrong) I chose this option because all of the remaining choices were nitpicking certain part of the para.
On the other I might be 100 % wrong too, so if anyone knows a better explanation please teach me 
Thank you!

Tanvay · Answer

Ans is A since in the argument they have mentioned two third amount was recovered that means one third is still left. I was slightly confusing in D but i think - All seven of the accused have plea-bargained to avoid trial - argument says to avoid trial but they are in prison so there will be a lot of assumption in it. So A stands clearly. Let us wait for someone's confirmation.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The bank noticed that big bucks were missing, so they called in the feds. The feds apprehended seven embezzlers, and returning these fund accounts for 2/3 of the missing money. All seven of the embezzlers plea-bargained and consequently got shorter sentence than they would have received if tried and convicted. We don't know where that remaining 1/3 of the missing money went.

What can we conclude?

(A) is the credited answer. We don't know what became of that remaining 1/3 of the money --- we don't know, and presumably, the bank managers don't know either. Did other embezzlers take that extra missing money? We don't know for sure, but that's as likely a hypothesis as any. In that sense, bank managers certainly have reason to suspect more embezzlers.

(B) is absolutely wrong. We don't know this at all. All we have is information about this one grand event this year. We don't know anything about the past.

(C) is a good tempting answer, because we suspect that it's probably a true statement. Nevertheless, nothing in the prompt paragraph gives any specific support to this.

(D) is a tricky one. Plea bargaining is inherently a gamble. If my case goes to trial, then I may be convicted and get a long sentence, or I may be acquitted and walk away a free man. Instead, if I plea bargain, I avoid a trial entirely, and get a guaranteed shorter sentence. I trade the risk of a longer sentence for the certainty of a short sentence. By plea bargaining, the embezzlers definitely got a shorter sentence than they would have gotten if they had been tried and convicted. The trouble is: if their cases went to trial, anything could happen: there's no guarantee that, in a trial, they would be convicted. If they got a good lawyer and a clueless jury (which happens more than you would like to think!), then they might have been entirely acquitted. Therefore, we can't necessarily conclude, if they didn't plea bargain, that they absolutely would have gotten stiffer sentences.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

It’s hard to buy this official explanation and I think D should be the answer.
In A: yes the returning these fund just accounts for 2/3 of the missing money, but maybe they have spent some money, so the returning amount is less than the missing amount. 
And in D: the passage says the embezzlers are now serving in prison on reduced sentences, so it means plea-bargained resulted in the reduced imprisonment.

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.

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of

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

Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of

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