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.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
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:
62% (02:10) correct
38%
(02:34)
wrong
based on 1339
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.
Trying to understand why the right answer is right?
GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions.
See how →
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."
