|
|
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.
Updated on: 10 Apr 2026, 07:44
Originally posted by Sajjad1994 on 09 Mar 2020, 08:24.
Last edited by Bunuel on 10 Apr 2026, 07:44, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 10 Apr 2026, 07:44, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
James: Additional loans do not account for an insignificant part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans.
Alexis: Company shareholders are not as likely as CEOs to take out additional loans.
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:
57% (03:02) correct
43%
(02:57)
wrong
based on 186
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
James: The price of credit defaults swaps (CDS) for ABC company is exploding to the upside. Credit default swaps are effectively insurance contracts on the possibility of a company defaulting on its loans. CDS prices have gone up, partly because ABC took out more loans than they can handle. These additional loans increase the risk of default and are passed on to CDS investors in the form of more expensived insurance premiums. Therefore, reducing the quantity of unnecessary loans will be effective in lowering the price of credit default swap contracts.
Alexis: In many cases, the unnecessary loans that you mention are decisions made by upper management on behalf of the company. CEO's will often choose the financing option that maximizes the debt to equity ratio and potential valuation of the company, but may not necessarily benefit the company. As a result, in order to succeed in reducing the price of credit default swaps, we should allow the company's board of direcctors to vote on which form of financing the company should allow and which forms it shoud not allow.
In the table below, identify the assumptions upon which each person's argument depends. Choose one option for each column.
Alexis: In many cases, the unnecessary loans that you mention are decisions made by upper management on behalf of the company. CEO's will often choose the financing option that maximizes the debt to equity ratio and potential valuation of the company, but may not necessarily benefit the company. As a result, in order to succeed in reducing the price of credit default swaps, we should allow the company's board of direcctors to vote on which form of financing the company should allow and which forms it shoud not allow.
In the table below, identify the assumptions upon which each person's argument depends. Choose one option for each column.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Two-part Analysis (TPA) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
| James | Alexis | Statements |
| CEOs are generally able to pick out, with consistent reliability, which loans and financing options would be best for the company. | ||
| Additional loans do not account for an insignificant part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans. | ||
| Credit default swap prices in other industries such as oil & gas and retail, have been lowered by reducing the number of additional loans taken out by the company. | ||
| Company shareholders are not as likely as CEOs to take out additional loans. | ||
| Credit default swap prices have increased three times as fast in the past 3 years than they have over the past decade. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
James: Additional loans do not account for an insignificant part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans.
Alexis: Company shareholders are not as likely as CEOs to take out additional loans.
09 Mar 2020, 08:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
James: Additional loans do not account for an insignificant part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans.
Since this additional loans increase the risk of default and are passed to CDS
Alexis: Company shareholders are not as likely as CEOs to take out additional loans.CEO and board of directors plan on the loans and the borrowing part
Posted from my mobile device
Since this additional loans increase the risk of default and are passed to CDS
Alexis: Company shareholders are not as likely as CEOs to take out additional loans.CEO and board of directors plan on the loans and the borrowing part
Posted from my mobile device
Manosij010
Joined: 18 Feb 2026
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26 ESADE ESSEC MiM '27 HEC MiM '27 IIM INSEAD MiM '27
GPA: 5.72
10 Apr 2026, 07:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
This sentence is primarily using a double negative ("do not account for an insignificant part").
In plain English, it means that new loans are actually a major reason why investors are worried.
Convert both negatives together to positives to get the desired meaning in simple terms :
"Additional loans ACCOUNT for A SIGNIFICANT part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans."
In plain English, it means that new loans are actually a major reason why investors are worried.
Convert both negatives together to positives to get the desired meaning in simple terms :
"Additional loans ACCOUNT for A SIGNIFICANT part of why investors have bid up the probability of the company defaulting on existing loans."
