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 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
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.
Oct 0301:00 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 Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
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:
63% (02:10) correct
37%
(02:33)
wrong
based on 1463
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.
Question exposed a gap?
Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report.
Get started →
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."
