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

 It is currently 20 May 2019, 17:49

### 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

# V05-05

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55188

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 02:24
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:09) correct 56% (02:35) wrong based on 39 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do. At the same time, relative to non-profit Social Organizations, for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid, such as food grants and guaranteed loans, for the people they serve. It must be, then, that for-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations.

The conclusion above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Public non-profit Social Organizations and private non-profit Social Organizations serve a similar proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens.
B. For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to help the people they serve.
C. The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations.
D. For-profit Social Organizations are of similar residential and educational quality as non-profit Social Organizations.
E. The majority of citizens that are served at for-profit Social Organizations do not have a past criminal record or a bad credit history.

_________________
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55188

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 02:24
Official Solution:

For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do. At the same time, relative to non-profit Social Organizations, for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid, such as food grants and guaranteed loans, for the people they serve. It must be, then, that for-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations.

The conclusion above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Public non-profit Social Organizations and private non-profit Social Organizations serve a similar proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens.
B. For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to help the people they serve.
C. The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations.
D. For-profit Social Organizations are of similar residential and educational quality as non-profit Social Organizations.
E. The majority of citizens that are served at for-profit Social Organizations do not have a past criminal record or a bad credit history.

The argument concludes that for-profit Social Organizations serve a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations. This conclusion is based on the fact that citizens at for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid. The argument assumes a link between the proportion of aid received and the proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens enrolled. In so doing, it assumes that there are not other possible reasons for the disproportionate aid distribution.
1. The conclusion makes a claim about the differences between for-profit and non-profit Social Organizations. Differences among non-profit Social Organizations – such as public vs. private – are irrelevant to the argument.
2. Correct. One alternative reason that might explain the disproportionate aid distribution is that for-profit Social Organizations engaged in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded financial assistance for the citizens they serve. If this were true, then much of the aid was distributed based not on the actual financial situation of the citizens but on the ability of Social Organizations to defraud federal and state governments. This answer choice asserts that this was NOT in fact the case, thereby eliminating this alternative explanation and highlighting a key assumption on which the argument rests.
3. The argument's claim is centered on proportions. The actual number of citizens receiving aid at for-profit vs. non-profit Social Organizations is irrelevant to the conclusion.
4. The relative residential or educational quality of for-profit vs. non-profit Social Organizations lies outside the scope of the argument, which is focused solely on differences in financial aid distribution.
5. The issue addressed by the argument is the amount of financial aid distributed to citizens at two types of institutions. Whether citizens have a bad credit history or a criminal record is immaterial to the claim made in the argument.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Posts: 6
Schools: AGSM '15

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2016, 02:52
Isn't quality of aids provided a concern? Coz if the wuality of aid provided by For-profit ones are higherr that explains why they get higher federal support.

Also in explanation of (C) What does the proportion refer to if not the number of people aided
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2873
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2016, 13:26
1
vipinmenon93 wrote:
Isn't quality of aids provided a concern? Coz if the wuality of aid provided by For-profit ones are higherr that explains why they get higher federal support.

Also in explanation of (C) What does the proportion refer to if not the number of people aided

The point you mentioned may be one reason that the for-profit Organsiations get a higher grant. However that reason does not have bearing on the assumption stated in option B. Even if the quality of aids is higher, the assumption would still be required to arrive at the conclusion.

One effective way to check the validity of an assumption is negating it and verifying whether the reasoning breaks down:

Negate B: For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to help the people they serve.

The argument then breaks down since for-profit organisations get the grant though the people they serve are not financially weak. The word "fraudulant" establishes this.
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Posts: 11

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2016, 21:06
Hello everyone,

I am slightly confused about the explanation why option C is wrong. The total number of financially disadvantaged citizen is some constant value lets say 10 million. Now is we say the following -
The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the corresponding number for non-profit Social Organizations. Does'nt it mean a bigger proportion in favor of for-profit Social Organizations
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 4

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2016, 12:55
Hi, I chose C. My thinking is as follows:
The argument is "For-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations."
The premise is"For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do."
Proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens=citizens benefited from financial aid/total number of citizens served. As For-profit organisations serve far fewer citizens, the proportion would be greater than that of non-profit ones once the No. of beneficiaries is greater. That is why I chose C.

Moreover, for choice B, I do not think it is necessarily right. Even though for-profit organisations are not engaged in fraudulent practices, the proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens can still be low if the citizens they serve are much more financially disadvantaged than those of non-profit ones. This means fewer people need more resources as they are poorer.

I need your opinion on this. Thanks.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2873
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2016, 11:27
korhiyatryinghard wrote:
Hello everyone,

I am slightly confused about the explanation why option C is wrong. The total number of financially disadvantaged citizen is some constant value lets say 10 million. Now is we say the following -
The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the corresponding number for non-profit Social Organizations. Does'nt it mean a bigger proportion in favor of for-profit Social Organizations

MaryLily wrote:
Hi, I chose C. My thinking is as follows:
The argument is "For-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations."
The premise is"For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do."
Proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens=citizens benefited from financial aid/total number of citizens served. As For-profit organisations serve far fewer citizens, the proportion would be greater than that of non-profit ones once the No. of beneficiaries is greater. That is why I chose C.

Moreover, for choice B, I do not think it is necessarily right. Even though for-profit organisations are not engaged in fraudulent practices, the proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens can still be low if the citizens they serve are much more financially disadvantaged than those of non-profit ones. This means fewer people need more resources as they are poorer.

I need your opinion on this. Thanks.

Your logic is strong, but please note that option C is NOT a mandatory requirement. Even if the the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is NOT greater, the proportion at for-profit organization could still be greater since the denominator for for-profit organization (total number of patients served) is lower. C is a strengthening statement, not an assumption.

I have tried to explain above why B is the correct option.
v05-184879.html#p1707934
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2018
Posts: 110
Location: India
Concentration: Real Estate, Finance
GPA: 3.58

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2018, 04:03
sayantanc2k wrote:
korhiyatryinghard wrote:
Hello everyone,

I am slightly confused about the explanation why option C is wrong. The total number of financially disadvantaged citizen is some constant value lets say 10 million. Now is we say the following -
The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the corresponding number for non-profit Social Organizations. Does'nt it mean a bigger proportion in favor of for-profit Social Organizations

MaryLily wrote:
Hi, I chose C. My thinking is as follows:
The argument is "For-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations."
The premise is"For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do."
Proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens=citizens benefited from financial aid/total number of citizens served. As For-profit organisations serve far fewer citizens, the proportion would be greater than that of non-profit ones once the No. of beneficiaries is greater. That is why I chose C.

Moreover, for choice B, I do not think it is necessarily right. Even though for-profit organisations are not engaged in fraudulent practices, the proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens can still be low if the citizens they serve are much more financially disadvantaged than those of non-profit ones. This means fewer people need more resources as they are poorer.

I need your opinion on this. Thanks.

Your logic is strong, but please note that option C is NOT a mandatory requirement. Even if the the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is NOT greater, the proportion at for-profit organization could still be greater since the denominator for for-profit organization (total number of patients served) is lower. C is a strengthening statement, not an assumption.

I have tried to explain above why B is the correct option.
http://gmatclub.com/forum/v05-184879.html#p1707934

Hi , the conclusion states that for-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations. It implies that if the number of financially disadvantaged citizens are 100 , then the number catered by for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number catered by the non-profit Social Organizations. It appears that you have misinterpreted the greater proportion . You mean to say that of the people catered by for-profit Social Organizations , the proportion of financially disadvantaged is greater. This is not what is mentioned in the stimulus .
Ex:
Number of financially disadvantaged citizens =100

Number of citizens catered by for -profit = 69 (FEWER)

Number of financially disadvantaged catered by for-profit = 60

Number of citizens catered by non-profit = 200

Number of financially disadvantaged catered by non-profit= 40(100-60)

For profit has a gretaer proportion (60/100) . I donot understand how the total citizns catered by for -profit (69)coes into picture .
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2018, 11:15
sayantanc2k wrote:
vipinmenon93 wrote:
Isn't quality of aids provided a concern? Coz if the wuality of aid provided by For-profit ones are higherr that explains why they get higher federal support.

Also in explanation of (C) What does the proportion refer to if not the number of people aided

The point you mentioned may be one reason that the for-profit Organsiations get a higher grant. However that reason does not have bearing on the assumption stated in option B. Even if the quality of aids is higher, the assumption would still be required to arrive at the conclusion.

One effective way to check the validity of an assumption is negating it and verifying whether the reasoning breaks down:

Negate B: For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to help the people they serve.

The argument then breaks down since for-profit organisations get the grant though the people they serve are not financially weak. The word "fraudulant" establishes this.

sayantanc2k

Could you please elaborate on why option C is irrelevant to the conclusion? If the number of citizens recieving financial aid from for profit organization are more than those recieving financial aid from non profit. Wouldn't it lead to a higher proportion of people recieving financial aid from for-profit??
Manager
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 74

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2019, 11:47
Prateek176 wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
vipinmenon93 wrote:
Isn't quality of aids provided a concern? Coz if the wuality of aid provided by For-profit ones are higherr that explains why they get higher federal support.

Also in explanation of (C) What does the proportion refer to if not the number of people aided

The point you mentioned may be one reason that the for-profit Organsiations get a higher grant. However that reason does not have bearing on the assumption stated in option B. Even if the quality of aids is higher, the assumption would still be required to arrive at the conclusion.

One effective way to check the validity of an assumption is negating it and verifying whether the reasoning breaks down:

Negate B: For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to help the people they serve.

The argument then breaks down since for-profit organisations get the grant though the people they serve are not financially weak. The word "fraudulant" establishes this.

sayantanc2k

Could you please elaborate on why option C is irrelevant to the conclusion? If the number of citizens recieving financial aid from for profit organization are more than those recieving financial aid from non profit. Wouldn't it lead to a higher proportion of people recieving financial aid from for-profit??

Two things come in the picture, stating why Option C is not the answer:
1. The argument clearly states that For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens than either public or private non-profit ones do.
2. Even if we negate Option C: The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is NOT greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations.

Meaning: The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations can be less or equal.
Any option choice which can swing in either direction is NOT a correct answer.
_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The trouble is, you think you have time.” – Buddha
Giving Kudos is the best way to encourage and appreciate people.
Re: V05-05   [#permalink] 17 Mar 2019, 11:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V05-05

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 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®.