Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to lig

Question

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established.

The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?

(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year.

(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning.

(C) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten.

(D) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices.

(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting.

srtdhoni · Answer

Can someone help with the P0E in detail?

Sanjeetgujrall · Answer

This is a hard question I think. It took me 2:30 to get the answer.

My way is the following....the question can be broken down into

1st Premise  - Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light 
 2nd Premise  - previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud
 3rd Premise  Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established

A- Only follows first premise The other 2 premises are kind of backward 
C- Does not match the argument at all
D- This was close but doesn't have the 3rd premise 
E- 2nd premise is missing which should say something along the lines of no possibility

Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning.

P1- Must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today
P2- It is not possible to get to Nantes until this afternoon
P3- Established: In-fact she was there at 11

Hence B

Sneha333 · Answer

For Option B -->how can we equate Could not with impossible.

desertEagle · Answer

The argument in the question depends on NEW EVIDENCE. 
Only B has NEW EVIDENCE ( that he was seen at 11am which nullifies the claim that she arrived in train after 12noon.)

So B

unraveled · Answer

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities  must have come to light . On the basis of  previously available evidence  alone, it  would have been impossible to prove  that Jamison was a party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud  has now been definitively established .

The  pattern of reasoning  exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one of the following?

(A) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased his or her property within the last year. - WRONG. Raises an ambiguity. With the evidence present(though in a otherwise manner) the conclusion is some form of parallax.

(B) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o’clock this morning. - CORRECT. Usual train taken reached Nantes on time(later actual i.e. usual train takes more time) as simple as that. No usual train taken no reaching Nantes late. Unusual train taken lead to reach Nantes before afternoon.

(C) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is likely to have forgotten. - WRONG. Not only the flow is reversed but new evidence is missing.

(D) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the cancellation notices. - WRONG. Goes offtrack when it tries to make an assumption based conclusion. New evidence is missing.

(E) LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday’s meeting. - WRONG. Similar in approach as D is.

Structure is that some past is known based on which a certain situation is not possible which requires a new evidence for it to happen. The flow is smooth and conclusion is reached out based on that.

All except B are either confusing while reaching to a conclusion or miss something(evidence).

Answer B.

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to lig

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to lig

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards