Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, I immediat

Question

Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, I immediately evaluate whether it is more likely that this person would either lie or be lied to, or that the corruption he describes actually exists. I weigh the self-serving or slanderous motivations that person may have against the evidence that the public official is corrupt. If the evidence outweighs the possibility of slander, then I further investigate the charge.

If the author does not further investigate a corruption charge, he assumes that:

A. people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons
B. corruption never happens among public officials
C. the evidence of corruption outweighs the possibility of slander
D. investigations into the corruption of public officials are usually fruitless
E. it is certain that the public official has been slandered

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

If the possibility of slander outweights the evidence, he may not investigate. Does it mean he is certain that it is slander? No. As is said in the argument - the possibilities are weighed against each other and then a decision is taken whether to investigate or not. Certainly cannot be established without investigation. Hence option (E) is not assumed.

But option (A) is an assumption. He assumes that people sometimes lie for self serving reasons. That is the reason he evaluates whether evidence outweighs the possibility of lying.

Answer (A)

ArpanKanjilal · Answer

If he was not certain, he would investigate. People "sometimes" lie implies that they sometimes don't as well. This would encourage investigation. IMO E

AbhishekRaut95 · Answer

By process of elimination:
Option B can be eliminated as it is too extreme and all-encompassing.
Option C can be eliminated as if evidence of corruption had indeed outweighed evidence of slander or untruth then the case would have been investigated.
Option D can be eliminated as it is out of scope.

Out of Option A & Option E, I think option E is again a little bit too extreme and it might so happen that apart from slander, there might be untruth involved. Option A best fits the fill.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Narrow down to A And E, but I think E is superior than A.
According to the last sentence: If the evidence outweighs the possibility of slander, then I further investigate the charge. So if does NOT investigate, then possibility of slander outweighs evidence— >this is what E means.

A says people lie, but premise tells us: people would either lie or be lied to, so when people say government is corrupt, they might be lied to, but not lie for self serving reasons.

Welcome to discuss.

PJ226 · Answer

Confused between option A and option E

ShaunakSawant · Answer

I was able to eliminate b,c,d and was down to A and E

I chose E as we know that there are only 2 possibility
If evidence outweighs slander ----> Investigation
If it does not - -- --- > Not an investigation (so can be slander)

ShaunakSawant · Answer

I chose E as we know that there are only 2 possibility
If evidence outweighs slander ----> Investigation
If it does not - -- --- > Not an investigation (so can be slander)

I was able to eliminate b,c,d and was down to A and E

soumya1104 · Answer

How to eleminate between A and E?

Solution :

function of the person who puts charge = C
Evidence that the public official is corrupt = E
Slanderous motivation a person may have = S
if E = 1 , S = 0 , then C = 1 (takes charge)

Except in the above case, in all other cases person does not take charge i.e

Putting all possible combinations :

if E = 0 , S = 1 , then C = 0 ( does not take charge )
or else E = 1 , S = 1 , then C = 0 ( does not take charge )
or else E = 0 , or S = 0, then C = 0 ( does not take charge )

No matter whether S = 1 or = 0 , C is always 0 This condition eleminates E that its certain that the PO is slandered
leaves with option A - it could be people lying and not slandering specifically

surajnayyar24 · Answer

KarishmaB , I am stuck at options A and E, not able to narrow down. Kindly throw some light on it.

SidT1026 · Answer

Confusion between option A and E. E is more extreme I agree but even the passage says that IF evidence outweighs slander he will investigate. Therefore implying that when he does not investigate then slander must outweigh evidence right? Isn't E more suitable here then?

8Harshitsharma · Answer

I think this question is not legit. Waiting for experts' take on it.

surajnayyar24 · Answer

KarishmaB , thank you so much ma'am. Clear now

Muqeet · Answer

The reason I did not go with A was because, the author mentions "I immediately evaluate whether it is more likely that this person would either lie or be lied to" hence there are two possibilities, and the latter one is that this person is not lying but rather he was lied to. Hence assuming people sometimes lie for self-serving reasons is not necessary.

DmitryFarber · Answer

Good point--we don't know why the original person might have lied, despite the later discussing of weighing the speaker's slanderous intentions. Answer A is still the closest we can get, since the others are all definitely invalid. However, the right answer should be more solid than this. In any case, the style and content of this argument don't really look anything like what we'd see on the GMAT. A good initial clue is the use of first person. If anyone can find a use of "I" in an official CR question, let me know!

Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, I immediat

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

Whenever anyone tells me that a public official is corrupt, I immediat

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