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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
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
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
16 Dec 2024, 09:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Problem with Version 1: It contains requirements that contradict each other.
Problem with Version 2: It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition.
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:
60% (02:08) correct
40%
(02:35)
wrong
based on 801
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Two flawed rough-draft versions of a section of a contract:
Version 1: The client shall pay $4,500 (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of $100, and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the $4,500 fee.
Version 2: The client shall pay $4,500 (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of $100 for each month in which the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee.
Select for Problem with Version 1 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 1 is flawed, and select for Problem with Version 2 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 2 is flawed. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Version 1: The client shall pay $4,500 (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of $100, and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the $4,500 fee.
Version 2: The client shall pay $4,500 (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of $100 for each month in which the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee.
Select for Problem with Version 1 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 1 is flawed, and select for Problem with Version 2 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 2 is flawed. Make only two selections, one in each column.
| Problem with Version 1 | Problem with Version 2 | |
| It uses the term client in two mutually exclusive ways without acknowledging the difference in meaning | ||
| It proposes a definition for a technical term even though that term is irrelevant to the topic it addresses. | ||
| It contains requirements that contradict each other. | ||
| It uses the words that date without any indication of what date they refer to. | ||
| It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Problem with Version 1: It contains requirements that contradict each other.
Problem with Version 2: It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition.
Krunaal
Tuck School Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 805
Given Kudos: 251
Status:Under the Square and Compass
Location: India
Schools: Booth '26 Kellogg '26 Johnson '26 Tuck '26 Duke '26 Ross '26 HBS '26 Stanford '26 CBS '26 Stern '26 Kellogg Darden '26 Yale '26 Wharton '26
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82 
GPA: 5.78
WE:Marketing (Consulting)
Products:
Schools: Booth '26 Kellogg '26 Johnson '26 Tuck '26 Duke '26 Ross '26 HBS '26 Stanford '26 CBS '26 Stern '26 Kellogg Darden '26 Yale '26 Wharton '26
GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82
Posts: 805
16 Dec 2024, 11:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Version 1: The late charge is stated as $100 but is capped at 1 percent of $4,500, which equals $45. These two requirements are contradictory: the charge cannot both be $100 per late payment and limited to $45 in total.
Problem with Version 1:
"It contains requirements that contradict each other."
Version 2: The statement, "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee," is necessarily true and uninformative because the fee alone ($4,500) already exceeds 1 percent of $4,500 ($45) without considering any late charges. This condition adds no useful information.
Problem with Version 2:
"It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."
Problem with Version 1:
"It contains requirements that contradict each other."
Version 2: The statement, "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee," is necessarily true and uninformative because the fee alone ($4,500) already exceeds 1 percent of $4,500 ($45) without considering any late charges. This condition adds no useful information.
Problem with Version 2:
"It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."
17 Dec 2024, 12:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. Version 1 has this, "the client shall also pay a late charge of $100, and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the $4,500 fee." 1 percent of the $4,500 fee is $45, however this is less than $100. So, the statement that best explains why version 1 is faulty is, "It contains requirements that contradict each other."
2. Version 2 has this, "the client shall pay an additional charge of $100 for each month in which the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee." 1 percent of the $4,500 fee is $45 and this is obviously less than $100 multiplied by the number of months the fee remains unpaid. So, the statement that best explains why version 2 is faulty is, "It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."
2. Version 2 has this, "the client shall pay an additional charge of $100 for each month in which the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee." 1 percent of the $4,500 fee is $45 and this is obviously less than $100 multiplied by the number of months the fee remains unpaid. So, the statement that best explains why version 2 is faulty is, "It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."
