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!
31 Mar 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (02:03) correct
42%
(02:14)
wrong
based on 244
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Charities will soon start scrutinizing major donors for any signs of financial wrongdoing. Even though the screening processes are estimated to disqualify up to ten percent of all prospective donors, they will still fail to identify one-third of all donors who have committed financial maleficence. Therefore, about five percent of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?
A. Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.
D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new screening processes is best supported by the passage above?
A. Incidences of financial wrongdoing are likely to rise by five percent.
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
C. The funding for social initiatives by charities is likely to fluctuate across a wider range.
D. Donations made solely for the benefit of the donor are likely to become rarer.
E. Potential first-time donors are likely to increase in number by ten percent.
31 Mar 2026, 22:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
🔍 Key facts from the passage:
Screening will disqualify up to 10% of prospective donors
It will still miss 1/3 of unethical donors
So, ~5% of actual donors will still be unethical
What does this imply?
The most direct and reliable takeaway is:
➡️ Some donors will be removed (up to 10%) due to screening
Even if some unethical donors remain, the process is clearly excluding a portion of donors overall.
📊 Evaluate the options:
A. ❌ Talks about increase in wrongdoing → Not supported (no such claim)
B. ✅ Money available is likely to decrease
If up to 10% of donors are disqualified, fewer donors → likely less total donations
✔️ This is the most logical and supported inference
C. ❌ Talks about fluctuation → No evidence
D. ❌ Talks about donor motivation → Not discussed
E. ❌ Talks about increase in new donors → No basis
✅ Final Answer:
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
Screening will disqualify up to 10% of prospective donors
It will still miss 1/3 of unethical donors
So, ~5% of actual donors will still be unethical
What does this imply?
The most direct and reliable takeaway is:
➡️ Some donors will be removed (up to 10%) due to screening
Even if some unethical donors remain, the process is clearly excluding a portion of donors overall.
📊 Evaluate the options:
A. ❌ Talks about increase in wrongdoing → Not supported (no such claim)
B. ✅ Money available is likely to decrease
If up to 10% of donors are disqualified, fewer donors → likely less total donations
✔️ This is the most logical and supported inference
C. ❌ Talks about fluctuation → No evidence
D. ❌ Talks about donor motivation → Not discussed
E. ❌ Talks about increase in new donors → No basis
✅ Final Answer:
B. The amount of money available to charities is likely to decrease.
31 Mar 2026, 23:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
charities will scrutinize major donors for financial wrongdoings.
screening processes are estimated to disqualify upto 10% of all prospective donors.
but still fail to identify one third of all donors who have done wrongdoings.
Conclusion- about 5% of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.
A no, just because 5% still provide unethical money doesnt mean wrongdoing is likely to raise by 5%. out.
B yes. if few have been removed then upcoming cash flow will be less.
C we cant be sure about whats going to happen in future. we only few donors have been removed. so out.
D no. because 5% are still there and they might hold the bigger chunk of pie.
E this is irrelevant.
screening processes are estimated to disqualify upto 10% of all prospective donors.
but still fail to identify one third of all donors who have done wrongdoings.
Conclusion- about 5% of actual donors will still provide unethically sourced money.
A no, just because 5% still provide unethical money doesnt mean wrongdoing is likely to raise by 5%. out.
B yes. if few have been removed then upcoming cash flow will be less.
C we cant be sure about whats going to happen in future. we only few donors have been removed. so out.
D no. because 5% are still there and they might hold the bigger chunk of pie.
E this is irrelevant.
ExpertsGlobal5
