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 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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 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.
07 Apr 2020, 04:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
83% (01:28) correct
17%
(01:35)
wrong
based on 276
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.
Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by
(A) shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
(B) providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by legislator
(C) claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
(D) rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
(E) showing that the legislator’s statements are self contradictory
Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by
(A) shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
(B) providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by legislator
(C) claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
(D) rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
(E) showing that the legislator’s statements are self contradictory
07 Apr 2020, 05:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Interesting question. The legislator is saying YOU PURPOSELY limited hiring; the regulator says THE LEGISLATURE had frozen starting salaries. This effectively does shift the blame but be careful - it is not shifting the blame for the scandals themselves!
Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.
Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by
(A) shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
This is a trap answer. The regulator is not trying to shift the blame FOR THE SCANDALS to the legislature.
(B) providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by legislator
Sounds fair enough. The regulator is providing information that challenges the accusation that there was a purposeful intent behind not hiring more investigators.
(C) claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
Nope. The regulator appears to be all on board with hiring more investigators if it had been possible.
(D) rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
Nope. No paraphrasing or rephrasing to make the regulator look better in the response.
(E) showing that the legislator’s statements are self contradictory
Nope. The regulator only states that the legislature had frozen starting salaries. There is nothing about self contradictory statements being mentioned by the regulator here.
Hope that helps.
Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.
Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.
The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by
(A) shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
This is a trap answer. The regulator is not trying to shift the blame FOR THE SCANDALS to the legislature.
(B) providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by legislator
Sounds fair enough. The regulator is providing information that challenges the accusation that there was a purposeful intent behind not hiring more investigators.
(C) claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
Nope. The regulator appears to be all on board with hiring more investigators if it had been possible.
(D) rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
Nope. No paraphrasing or rephrasing to make the regulator look better in the response.
(E) showing that the legislator’s statements are self contradictory
Nope. The regulator only states that the legislature had frozen starting salaries. There is nothing about self contradictory statements being mentioned by the regulator here.
Hope that helps.
13 Aug 2024, 04:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
