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 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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
16 Oct 2025, 00:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (01:28) correct
32%
(01:32)
wrong
based on 380
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The country has recently been shaken by the increase in incidents of corruption amongst the political class and the bureaucracy. The solution clearly is to appoint an independent investigating body headed by a person of repute who can investigate such cases of corruption and punish those found guilty.
The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?
(A) The appointment of the independent body is the only way to combat corruption.
(B) The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption.
(C) Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy.
(D) The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent for people/agencies susceptible to corruption.
(E) If not controlled immediately, the problem of corruption can spiral out of control.
The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?
(A) The appointment of the independent body is the only way to combat corruption.
(B) The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption.
(C) Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy.
(D) The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent for people/agencies susceptible to corruption.
(E) If not controlled immediately, the problem of corruption can spiral out of control.
16 Oct 2025, 06:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Alright, so the correct answer is (B). Let me walk you through why.
Think about the argument's core idea: "We have a corruption problem, so let's create a new, independent group to fix it."
The whole plan depends on one huge, unstated belief: that this new group will actually be the solution. Now, what's the biggest, most obvious way this plan could fail? It would fail if the new group, the "solution," also became corrupt. If your watchdog is just as bad as the people it's supposed to be watching, you haven't solved anything.
That's why (B) The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption is the perfect answer. It's the essential assumption that must be true for the plan to work. If you add this sentence into the original argument, it plugs the biggest potential hole in the logic. It basically says, "Don't worry, the solution will actually remain a solution," which makes the conclusion that it is the solution much more believable.
Why the others aren't as good:
(A) The appointment of the independent body is the only way to combat corruption. This is too extreme. The argument says this plan is the solution, but it doesn't have to be the only possible solution in the world. Maybe raising salaries or increasing transparency could also work. This option is too strong and isn't necessary for the argument to be reasonable.
(C) Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy. This is completely off-topic. The argument is focused on fixing corruption among politicians and bureaucrats. Whether your local shopkeeper is also corrupt has no bearing on whether this specific plan for the government will work.
(D) The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent... This one actually does the opposite! It weakens the conclusion. If the punishment doesn't stop others from being corrupt, then the new agency isn't a very good "solution" to the problem of increasing incidents, is it?
(E) If not controlled immediately, the problem of corruption can spiral out of control. This just adds a sense of urgency. It tells us why we need a solution fast, but it doesn't give any support to the idea that this specific plan is the right one. It's like saying "We need to put out this fire!" but it doesn't help prove that a particular fire extinguisher is the right tool for the job.
So, when you look at it, only (B) directly addresses and strengthens the core logic of the proposed plan itself, making it the best answer.
Think about the argument's core idea: "We have a corruption problem, so let's create a new, independent group to fix it."
The whole plan depends on one huge, unstated belief: that this new group will actually be the solution. Now, what's the biggest, most obvious way this plan could fail? It would fail if the new group, the "solution," also became corrupt. If your watchdog is just as bad as the people it's supposed to be watching, you haven't solved anything.
That's why (B) The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption is the perfect answer. It's the essential assumption that must be true for the plan to work. If you add this sentence into the original argument, it plugs the biggest potential hole in the logic. It basically says, "Don't worry, the solution will actually remain a solution," which makes the conclusion that it is the solution much more believable.
Why the others aren't as good:
(A) The appointment of the independent body is the only way to combat corruption. This is too extreme. The argument says this plan is the solution, but it doesn't have to be the only possible solution in the world. Maybe raising salaries or increasing transparency could also work. This option is too strong and isn't necessary for the argument to be reasonable.
(C) Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy. This is completely off-topic. The argument is focused on fixing corruption among politicians and bureaucrats. Whether your local shopkeeper is also corrupt has no bearing on whether this specific plan for the government will work.
(D) The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent... This one actually does the opposite! It weakens the conclusion. If the punishment doesn't stop others from being corrupt, then the new agency isn't a very good "solution" to the problem of increasing incidents, is it?
(E) If not controlled immediately, the problem of corruption can spiral out of control. This just adds a sense of urgency. It tells us why we need a solution fast, but it doesn't give any support to the idea that this specific plan is the right one. It's like saying "We need to put out this fire!" but it doesn't help prove that a particular fire extinguisher is the right tool for the job.
So, when you look at it, only (B) directly addresses and strengthens the core logic of the proposed plan itself, making it the best answer.
Bunuel
16 Oct 2025, 10:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) “The appointment of the independent body is the only way to combat corruption.”
→ Too extreme, bro. The argument never says “only” this will work — it just proposes a solution, not the only one. So no.
---
(B) “The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption.”
→ OHH now this one hits the logic jackpot 🎯
If the agency itself becomes corrupt, then appointing it won’t solve anything.
So for the conclusion to make sense (that it will solve corruption), we must assume it’s incorruptible.
Makes total logical sense.
---
(C) “Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy.”
→ Nah, irrelevant. Even if corruption exists elsewhere, the argument is just about these groups.
---
(D) “The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent...”
→ This weakens the argument — if punishment doesn’t deter, then the solution fails.
---
(E) “If not controlled immediately, corruption will spiral out of control.”
→ That just says why it’s urgent, not why the body will work.
→ Too extreme, bro. The argument never says “only” this will work — it just proposes a solution, not the only one. So no.
---
(B) “The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption.”
→ OHH now this one hits the logic jackpot 🎯
If the agency itself becomes corrupt, then appointing it won’t solve anything.
So for the conclusion to make sense (that it will solve corruption), we must assume it’s incorruptible.
Makes total logical sense.
---
(C) “Corruption is not present outside the political class and the bureaucracy.”
→ Nah, irrelevant. Even if corruption exists elsewhere, the argument is just about these groups.
---
(D) “The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as a deterrent...”
→ This weakens the argument — if punishment doesn’t deter, then the solution fails.
---
(E) “If not controlled immediately, corruption will spiral out of control.”
→ That just says why it’s urgent, not why the body will work.
