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 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
16 Sep 2014, 02:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
It is unwise to allow individual postal employees to decide on their own when to open a package they judge "suspicious." Once such discretion is granted, idle curiosity will inevitably lead to every parcel’s being opened en route.
The argument above relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package.
B. Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty.
C. Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail.
D. Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape.
E. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not.
The argument above relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package.
B. Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty.
C. Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail.
D. Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape.
E. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not.
16 Sep 2014, 02:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
It is unwise to allow individual postal employees to decide on their own when to open a package they judge "suspicious." Once such discretion is granted, idle curiosity will inevitably lead to every parcel’s being opened en route.
The argument above relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package.
B. Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty.
C. Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail.
D. Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape.
E. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not.
A) Incorrect - Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package. This option, if true, would weaken the argument, rather than be an assumption it relies upon. The argument asserts that without clear guidelines (implied by allowing individual employees to decide on their own), "idle curiosity will inevitably lead to every parcel's being opened." If regulations did clearly define "suspicious" packages, it would provide a standard that could limit the exercise of "idle curiosity," thus undermining the claim that "every parcel" would inevitably be opened. An assumption is something the argument must believe to be true for its conclusion to follow.
B) Incorrect - Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty. This is an opposite of a possible assumption that employees actually have time to snoop around the packages but since this is the opposite, we can eliminate it.
C) Incorrect - Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail This is a far cry - processing speed is outside the scope. The author’s objection is about privacy (packages arriving already opened), not about efficiency. The conclusion can stand even if mail moves faster, slower, or at the same pace.
D. Incorrect - Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape. Tamper‐evident tape might reveal openings, but the argument’s logic does not depend on how obvious an opening is and is only concerned whether employees will open parcels. We may think it is required for the package owners to claim that all have been opened but the argument does not claim all is in 100% but rather in a general way. In any case, this is trap answer to see if anyone picks it. If you disagree, please share your comments in the discussion.
E. CORRECT ANSWER. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not. The reasoning assumes that virtually any parcel can qualify as “suspicious.” If ordinary packages were easily distinguishable from truly suspicious ones, curious employees could not justify opening every parcel, and the prediction that “all packages will arrive opened” would be unfounded.
Answer: E
It is unwise to allow individual postal employees to decide on their own when to open a package they judge "suspicious." Once such discretion is granted, idle curiosity will inevitably lead to every parcel’s being opened en route.
The argument above relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package.
B. Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty.
C. Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail.
D. Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape.
E. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not.
A) Incorrect - Postal regulations clearly define what constitutes a genuinely suspicious package. This option, if true, would weaken the argument, rather than be an assumption it relies upon. The argument asserts that without clear guidelines (implied by allowing individual employees to decide on their own), "idle curiosity will inevitably lead to every parcel's being opened." If regulations did clearly define "suspicious" packages, it would provide a standard that could limit the exercise of "idle curiosity," thus undermining the claim that "every parcel" would inevitably be opened. An assumption is something the argument must believe to be true for its conclusion to follow.
B) Incorrect - Most postal workers have little idle time while on duty. This is an opposite of a possible assumption that employees actually have time to snoop around the packages but since this is the opposite, we can eliminate it.
C) Incorrect - Granting employees such discretion would not significantly slow the overall processing of mail This is a far cry - processing speed is outside the scope. The author’s objection is about privacy (packages arriving already opened), not about efficiency. The conclusion can stand even if mail moves faster, slower, or at the same pace.
D. Incorrect - Most packages enter the postal system sealed with tamper‐evident tape. Tamper‐evident tape might reveal openings, but the argument’s logic does not depend on how obvious an opening is and is only concerned whether employees will open parcels. We may think it is required for the package owners to claim that all have been opened but the argument does not claim all is in 100% but rather in a general way. In any case, this is trap answer to see if anyone picks it. If you disagree, please share your comments in the discussion.
E. CORRECT ANSWER. A parcel that is genuinely suspicious cannot be readily distinguished from one that is not. The reasoning assumes that virtually any parcel can qualify as “suspicious.” If ordinary packages were easily distinguishable from truly suspicious ones, curious employees could not justify opening every parcel, and the prediction that “all packages will arrive opened” would be unfounded.
Answer: E
10 Jan 2015, 22:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Why option B is not correct
it says : Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
If suspicious packages are distinguishable from others than the conclusion seems to be shattered as only the suspicious packages will now be opened.
also don't you think that option [E] is kind of restated as "it is only a matter of time before all packages will arrive having already been opened due to some postal employee’s idle curiosity."
and we know that assumption are missing premise not the restated premise.
Please shed some light on this let me know where i am going wrong
Thanks in advance!!
)
