This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

Embezzlement

by bhumika.k.shah » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:35 am
A recent study concluded that the employees most likely to embezzle are those who have not been trained in a company ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company. Company C, which had problems with employee corruption in the past, has had several recent cases in which its employees have been suspected of embezzlement.

According to the study, which of the following employees is LEAST likely to embezzle from company C?

A.An employee who was not trained in a company ethics course and owns shares of another company's stock.

B.An employee who has taken an ethics course offered outside the company.

C.An employee who has a side business as a stock analyst, but does not own any of company C's stock.

D.An employee who does not own any of company C's stock but was trained in company C's ethics course.

E.An employee who owns stock in many different companies, but not in company C.


I spent 3 minutes on this problem and yet i got it wrong!
:(

Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:50 am
I finally got it !

I drew a table and made sub columns with either of the 2 conditions being satisfied and another column based on the previous two that would an employee in each option be considered for this !

Any time saving approach ???
bhumika.k.shah wrote:A recent study concluded that the employees most likely to embezzle are those who have not been trained in a company ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company. Company C, which had problems with employee corruption in the past, has had several recent cases in which its employees have been suspected of embezzlement.

According to the study, which of the following employees is LEAST likely to embezzle from company C?

A.An employee who was not trained in a company ethics course and owns shares of another company's stock.

B.An employee who has taken an ethics course offered outside the company.

C.An employee who has a side business as a stock analyst, but does not own any of company C's stock.

D.An employee who does not own any of company C's stock but was trained in company C's ethics course.

E.An employee who owns stock in many different companies, but not in company C.


I spent 3 minutes on this problem and yet i got it wrong!
:(

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:51 am
IMO D

most likely to embezzle=who have not been trained in a company ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company

LEAST likely to embezzle from company C=eiher who have been trained in a company C's ethics course or have a stake in the financial success of the company

a)person who=have not been trained in a company C ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company C=most likely to embezzle

b)=same as A
c)does not own company c's stock=most likely to embezzle
d)
was trained in company C’s ethics course=LEAST likely to embezzle from company C
e)=do not have a stake in the financial success of the company C=most likely to embezzle

OA pls

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:660

by DeepakR » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:55 am
Premise - Those who have not been trained in a company ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company.

D. seems better option. Is the OA D.) ?

A - not trained and owns shares outside C..hence most likely to engage in embezzlement
C - no financial stake in C and owns a different bussiness..hence most likely
B - no ethics course of C and no stake in C..hence more chances
E - owns stake in other companies so more chance of embezzlement.

- Deepak

Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:55 am
OA D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:12 am
I have a doubt in the logic that has been explained,

if<> then<> construct when it contains an either or premise it turns out to be an "and" in contra-positive , so

P1. if Not trained or do not have stake --> embezzle

the contra positive should be

not embezzle --> trained and have stake.

This is because the above P1 could be divided as

1. Not trained --> could embezzle
2. do not have stake --> could embezzle.

Please clarify.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:28 am
bhumika.k.shah wrote:A recent study concluded that the employees most likely to embezzle are those who have not been trained in a company ethics course or do not have a stake in the financial success of the company. Company C, which had problems with employee corruption in the past, has had several recent cases in which its employees have been suspected of embezzlement.

According to the study, which of the following employees is LEAST likely to embezzle from company C?

Cause : No training in company ethics course /No stake in company
Effect : Embezzlement

LEAST likely means FOUR ANSWER CHOICES will support the causal relationship stated above and ONE ANSWER CHOICE will not support it. Lets see which one :


A.An employee who was not trained in a company ethics course and owns shares of another company's stock.
Incorrect : No training in ethics - So this one is LIKELY to embezzle

B.An employee who has taken an ethics course offered outside the company.
Incorrect : Ethics course offered outside the company may not match with ethics of the company. Hence even this one is LIKELY to embezzle.

C.An employee who has a side business as a stock analyst, but does not own any of company C's stock.
Incorrect : No stake in company - LIKELY to embezzle

D.An employee who does not own any of company C's stock but was trained in company C's ethics course.
Correct : Trained in Company's ethics - NOT LIKELY to embezzle

E.An employee who owns stock in many different companies, but not in company C.
Incorrect : No stake in company c - LIKELY to embezzle

Hope This Helps : )