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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
49% (02:27) correct
51%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 840
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Nationwide, nearly two percent of all business school graduates will eventually be convicted of violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, fully eight percent of all employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert, a top brokerage firm have been convicted of such violations. This dubious distinction clearly indicates that employees with MBAs at Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are four times as corrupt as employees with MBAs at other brokerage firms.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.
B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.
C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.
D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.
E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.
B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.
C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.
D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.
E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success.
01 Nov 2015, 04:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
MrSobe17
A) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate brokerage firms than other businesses.
we are comparing within brokerage firms only, so out
B) Most of the employees of Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.
the use of 'most' negates the choice
C) A greater number of the Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other brokerage firms.
a deceptive choice.. we are talking about % and not number
D) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.
the choice is correct... because of the four times the average number people being convicted, the arguement claims people are four times more corrupt...
there may be more number of peoplecorrupt but the level may be less,..
E) Schicksal, Barnham & Lampert regularly hires from the top eight percent of all business school graduates, who must have competed vigorously to have enjoyed such success
out of scope
24 Jul 2017, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is indeed an challenging question. Hence, I would like to post my explanation of the correct answer choice.
Option D compares the level of corruption between :
1. Individuals on a staff (Think of it as a whole group)
2. Individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior
Now, Option D says that level of corruption between the above mentioned individuals is NOT directly related.
Therefore, you cannot conclude that just because 8% of the MBAs at the firm have been convicted (Group 2) , all the the firm's employees with MBA (Group 1) will be proportionally corrupt (i.e 8%).
Therefore, Option B weakens the argument and is the correct answer.
Option D compares the level of corruption between :
1. Individuals on a staff (Think of it as a whole group)
2. Individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior
Now, Option D says that level of corruption between the above mentioned individuals is NOT directly related.
Therefore, you cannot conclude that just because 8% of the MBAs at the firm have been convicted (Group 2) , all the the firm's employees with MBA (Group 1) will be proportionally corrupt (i.e 8%).
Therefore, Option B weakens the argument and is the correct answer.
