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.
Sep 2401:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Sep 2312:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Sep 2601:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included. Class starts Saturdays Sept. 26, 2026 - Dec. 19, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm ES
Sep 2606:00 PM PDT
-07:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
19 Jan 2024, 14:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
69% (02:21) correct
31%
(02:21)
wrong
based on 427
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In Nurica, investors who believe they are the victims of malpractice by their financial advisors can file a claim with a government agency. The agency arbitrates the dispute unless a settlement is reached before the hearing date. Of those claims that reached the arbitration stage, a smaller proportion resulted in restitution for the investor in 1995 than in 1994. Nonetheless, a larger proportion of all the claims filed resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?
A. The proportion of claims filed that were unfounded was higher in 1995 than in 1994.
B. The average amount awarded to investors whose claims were arbitrated by the agency was lower in 1995 than in 1994
C. The average amount of restitution for settlement was higher in 1995 than in 1994
D. There were fewer arbitrators available to hear claims in 1995 than in 1994
E. A larger proportion of claims settled prior to arbitration resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?
A. The proportion of claims filed that were unfounded was higher in 1995 than in 1994.
B. The average amount awarded to investors whose claims were arbitrated by the agency was lower in 1995 than in 1994
C. The average amount of restitution for settlement was higher in 1995 than in 1994
D. There were fewer arbitrators available to hear claims in 1995 than in 1994
E. A larger proportion of claims settled prior to arbitration resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994
19 Jul 2024, 08:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Samya2113
To solve this question, let us deploy IMS's four-step technique.
STEP #1 -> IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
Let us read the question stem to identify the question type. The stem, 'Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information given?' indicates an inference question.
Now that the question type is identified, let us proceed to the second step.
STEP #2 -> X-RAY THE ARGUMENT
In an inference question, it is a must to x-ray the argument. Let us therefore read the argument and state the facts mentioned as we read.
FACT #1 -> In Nurica, investors who believe they are the victims of malpractice by their financial advisors can file a claim with a government agency.
FACT #2 -> The agency arbitrates the dispute unless a settlement is reached before the hearing date.
FACT #3 -> Of those claims that reached the arbitration stage, a smaller proportion resulted in restitution for the investor in 1995 than in 1994.
FACT #4 -> Nonetheless, a larger proportion of all the claims filed resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994.
For the sake of convenience, let us say a total of 1000 claims were filed in both 1994 and 1995. Since a larger proportion of all the claims filed resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994, let us say 600 of the 1000 claims filed resulted in restitution in 1995 as opposed to 200 in 1994. Also, fact #3 says a smaller proportion of those claims that reached the arbitration stage resulted in restitution for the investor in 1995 than in 1994. Again, let us say 700 claims reached the arbitration stage in both 1994 and 1995, but in 1995, only 100 out of these resulted in restitution as opposed to 150 in 1994.
Let us do a fact check now.
Of those claims that reached the arbitration stage (700), a smaller proportion resulted in restitution for the investor in 1995 (100) than in 1994 (150). (100/700<150/700)
A larger proportion of all the claims (1000) filed resulted in restitution in 1995 (600) than in 1994 (200). (600/1000>200/1000)
Now that the argument is x-rayed, let us proceed to the third step.
STEP #3 -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER
In an inference question, the correct answer must be 100 percent validated by the facts mentioned in the passage.
SHADOW ANSWER: An option that is fully validated by the stated facts.
Now that we know what the right answer should do, let us proceed to the final step.
STEP #4 -> PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
A. The proportion of claims filed that were unfounded was higher in 1995 than in 1994. - NOT A MATCH - There is no info regarding unfounded claims. - ELIMINATE
B. The average amount awarded to investors whose claims were arbitrated by the agency was lower in 1995 than in 1994. - NOT A MATCH - There is no info regarding the amount awarded to investors. - ELIMINATE
C. The average amount of restitution for settlement was higher in 1995 than in 1994 - NOT A MATCH - There is no info regarding the amount of restitution for settlement. - ELIMINATE
D. There were fewer arbitrators available to hear claims in 1995 than in 1994. - NOT A MATCH - Again, there is no info regarding the number of arbitrators. - ELIMINATE
E. A larger proportion of claims settled prior to arbitration resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994 - MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER - While x-raying the argument, we came up with some numbers. Let us now consider them.
1995
Total number of claims filed - 1000
Claims that resulted in restitution - 600
Number of claims that reached arbitration - 700
Number of claims that resulted in restitution after arbitration - 100
We know 600 claims resulted in restitution. We can infer than 500 of these 600 claims (600 - 100) were settled before arbitration.
1994
Total number of claims filed - 1000
Claims that resulted in restitution - 200
Number of claims that reached arbitration - 700
Number of claims that resulted in restitution after arbitration - 150
We know 200 claims resulted in restitution. We can infer than 50 of these 200 (200-150) claims were settled before arbitration.
Our workings above indicate that a larger proportion of claims settled prior to arbitration resulted in restitution in 1995 than in 1994. (500/600>50/200) - MARK AND MOVE
Hence, (E) is the right answer.
General Discussion
