GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 07:51

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# V05-03

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 47983

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 02:24
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (01:09) correct 57% (01:05) wrong based on 83 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages. If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol, it is only a matter of time before all packages will arrive having already been opened due to some postal employee’s idle curiosity.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A. Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
B. Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
C. The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
D. There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
E. Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.

_________________
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 47983

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 02:24
Official Solution:

It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages. If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol, it is only a matter of time before all packages will arrive having already been opened due to some postal employee’s idle curiosity.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A. Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
B. Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
C. The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
D. There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
E. Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.

Situation: The author of the passage argues that if individual post office employees are allowed individual discretion as to when to open suspicious packages, they will soon open all packages out of curiosity.

Reasoning: Which of the following is an assumption made in the passage? The author of the passage would like to see postal service employees prevented from making their own decisions about when to open packages. The author would prefer that a strict protocol for opening suspicious packages be put in place in order to prevent all packages from arriving already open. The author assumes that postal employees will open packages out of curiosity and wants to prevent this.
1. This is not a required assumption.
2. What exactly makes a package suspicious is not discussed in the passage, and so it is impossible to tell whether it is indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
3. Postal service efficiency is not the author’s concern here.
4. It is not assumed that no protocol exists at all. The passage states about requirement of "strict protocol". This may as well imply that there is a current protocol that is not strict enough.
5. The author of the passage’s fear is that, if postal employees are allowed to decide when to open packages, they will open them all out of idle curiosity.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 46

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2015, 22:37
Bunuel wrote:
Official Solution:

It is a mistake to give post office employees individual discretion as to when to inspect or open suspicious packages. If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol, it is only a matter of time before all packages will arrive having already been opened due to some postal employee’s idle curiosity.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A. Postal service managers are the only people with the authority to open suspicious packages.
B. Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
C. The efficiency of the postal service will be greatly reduced if more packages are inspected.
D. There is currently no protocol in place for the inspection of suspicious packages.
E. Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.

Situation: The author of the passage argues that if individual post office employees are allowed individual discretion as to when to open suspicious packages, they will soon open all packages out of curiosity.

Reasoning: Which of the following is an assumption made in the passage? The author of the passage would like to see postal service employees prevented from making their own decisions about when to open packages. The author would prefer that a strict protocol for opening suspicious packages be put in place in order to prevent all packages from arriving already open. The author assumes that postal employees will open packages out of curiosity and wants to prevent this.
1. This claim is not made in the passage.
2. What exactly makes a package suspicious is not discussed in the passage, and so it is impossible to tell whether it is indistinguishable from all other kinds of package.
3. Postal service efficiency is not the author’s concern here.
4. The passage does not support this claim.
5. The author of the passage’s fear is that, if postal employees are allowed to decide when to open packages, they will open them all out of idle curiosity.

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
_________________

Never Try Quitting, Never Quit Trying

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 232
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2015, 05:58
I was also confused between B and E, and initially picked B as an answer because of the same reason mentioned in the post by Ankur9.

However, this is my second thought -

Suspicious packages are indistinguishable from all other kinds of package. -> This means all the packages look similar and it's hard to distinguish a package from a suspicious package (Hold it here)

Option E states 'Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity.'

Here is the catch now -> If postal employees do not desire to open packages out of curiosity, do you think they will open suspicious package???

No right, because they don't desire to open packages out of curiosity.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Current Student
Joined: 08 Jan 2015
Posts: 82

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2016, 01:33
I agree with DesiGmat. Without curiosity they will not open any of them at all. At the same time, even if the are able to distinguish suspicious from not suspicious but have curiosity they will open them.
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 375
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2016, 22:50
I am not able to eliminate option B here.
Experts any thoughts here?
chetan2u
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3188
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2016, 09:49
goforgmat wrote:
I am not able to eliminate option B here.
Experts any thoughts here?
chetan2u

You are trapped by the reverse logic. The passage assumes that the the suspicious packages are DISTINGUISHABLE from normal packages - that is why the statement: "If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol.... ".

However to arrive at the conclusion, it does not matter whether the suspicious packages are distinguishable - if the employees are curious, they will open all packages (distinction does not matter in that case - employees may categorize all packages as "suspicious" depending on their own discretion).
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2016
Posts: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.87
WE: Sales (Internet and New Media)

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2016, 03:22
I think this is a high-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. I do not follow the explanation,please elaborate
I marked option D because according to the argument
"If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol"IMPLIES
that there is no strict protocol to follow for opening/inspecting a package in the first place,
Hence IMO option D is an assumption on which the conclusion relies more than the reason for opening a package as suggested by option E.
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3188
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2016, 06:52
karanchamp1 wrote:
I think this is a high-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. I do not follow the explanation,please elaborate
I marked option D because according to the argument
"If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol"IMPLIES
that there is no strict protocol to follow for opening/inspecting a package in the first place,
Hence IMO option D is an assumption on which the conclusion relies more than the reason for opening a package as suggested by option E.
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

It is not assumed that no protocol exists at all. The passage states about requirement of "strict protocol". This may as well imply that there is a current protocol that is not strict enough.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2016
Posts: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.87
WE: Sales (Internet and New Media)

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2016, 00:28
sayantanc2k wrote:
karanchamp1 wrote:
I think this is a high-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. I do not follow the explanation,please elaborate
I marked option D because according to the argument
"If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol"IMPLIES
that there is no strict protocol to follow for opening/inspecting a package in the first place,
Hence IMO option D is an assumption on which the conclusion relies more than the reason for opening a package as suggested by option E.
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

It is not assumed that no protocol exists at all. The passage states about requirement of "strict protocol". This may as well imply that there is a current protocol that is not strict enough.

But how does that make option E a better choice??
Consider my line of thought
I used negation test on the two best choices i came down to D and E
so option D says there is no protocol to follow
and option E says that employees DO NOT open packages out of idle curiosity( )
so suppose there is no protocol to follow than does it matter why an employee checked a parcel
furthermore in BUNUEL's explanation for option D
"The passage does not support this claim."
an assumption is not supported by an argument its the HIDDEN LINK between the premise and conclusion right?
so how do i proceed??
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3188
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2016, 07:24
1
karanchamp1 wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
karanchamp1 wrote:
I think this is a high-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. I do not follow the explanation,please elaborate
I marked option D because according to the argument
"If individual employees are allowed to open “suspicious” packages without first following a strict protocol"IMPLIES
that there is no strict protocol to follow for opening/inspecting a package in the first place,
Hence IMO option D is an assumption on which the conclusion relies more than the reason for opening a package as suggested by option E.
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

It is not assumed that no protocol exists at all. The passage states about requirement of "strict protocol". This may as well imply that there is a current protocol that is not strict enough.

But how does that make option E a better choice??
Consider my line of thought
I used negation test on the two best choices i came down to D and E
so option D says there is no protocol to follow
and option E says that employees DO NOT open packages out of idle curiosity( )
so suppose there is no protocol to follow than does it matter why an employee checked a parcel
furthermore in BUNUEL's explanation for option D
"The passage does not support this claim."
an assumption is not supported by an argument its the HIDDEN LINK between the premise and conclusion right?
so how do i proceed??

Option E states: "Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity." If they did not do that , then there would be no requirement for stricter protocol. Thus negating option E breaks the argument.

Option D: Already explained in the previous post. "No protocol" is not a mandatory assumption.

The OE for option D is changed.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2016
Posts: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 3.87
WE: Sales (Internet and New Media)

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2016, 09:31
sayantanc2k wrote:
Option E states: "Postal employees desire to open packages out of curiosity." If they did not do that , then there would be no requirement for stricter protocol. Thus negating option E breaks the argument.

Option D: Already explained in the previous post. "No protocol" is not a mandatory assumption.

The OE for option D is changed.

sayantanc2k thanks for taking the pain man,sometimes I just don't get it in one go
Kudos!!!!!!!
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2017
Posts: 14
Location: India
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2017, 04:15
going the fact the negation of the statement must invalidate the passage - Choice B does that. cos if suspicious packages are different looking - then its easy to mandate workers to open only those packets. Its because all packets look alike we have a problem. Also - the question states "desire" - its not just becasue of desire - its just curiosity !! HENCE - its either a poor quality question or the negation logic works for 2 options. - thoughts ?
Re: V05-03 &nbs [#permalink] 22 Oct 2017, 04:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V05-03

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.