Federal investigators, called in at the request of the management of Ploutos National Bank, recently apprehended a ring of seven embezzlers from among the bank's employees. The bank management decided to call in the federal investigators when they were unable to account for millions of dollars missing in their budget for this year. All the funds those seven individuals embezzled have been returned to the bank, and that accounts for about two thirds of the total amount missing. All seven of the accused have plea-bargained to avoid trial and are now serving in prison on reduced sentences.
Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?
A) The Ploutos National Bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by Federal investigators.
B) In the past, no employee had ever embezzled funds from Ploutos National Bank
C) Federal investigators have the means at their disposal to detect any large illegal transfers of money.
D) The seven embezzlers would have wound up with longer prison sentences if they had not plea-bargained.
E) In initiating a federal investigation of their own company, the managers of Ploutos National Bank were subject to no fees from the federal government.
OA A
Source: Magoosh
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Federal investigators, called in at the request of the
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
OPTION A - CORRECT
This is a sensible decision that can be deduced from the argument because the amount returned to the bank is just two-third of the amount being embezzled. The means that the bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by the federal investigators in order to account for the remaining missing money.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
There is no evidence or indication to prove that no employee has ever embezzled funds from the Ploutos national bank. So, this option cannot be a conclusion derived from the argument.
OPTION C - INCORRECT
The argument isn't about the ways federal investigators can detect illegal transfer of money. So, this cannot serve as a conclusion gotten from the information.
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The information given claims that all seven of the accused plea-bargained to avoid trial, and eventually ended up with reduced sentences. This means that their main purpose of the plea-bargain is to avoid trial and not necessarily because of the reduced sentences.
OPTION E - INCORRECT
There is no indication of this in the information provided. So, it cannot serve as a conclusion to the information.
This is a sensible decision that can be deduced from the argument because the amount returned to the bank is just two-third of the amount being embezzled. The means that the bank still has reason to suspect more embezzlers beyond the seven apprehended by the federal investigators in order to account for the remaining missing money.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
There is no evidence or indication to prove that no employee has ever embezzled funds from the Ploutos national bank. So, this option cannot be a conclusion derived from the argument.
OPTION C - INCORRECT
The argument isn't about the ways federal investigators can detect illegal transfer of money. So, this cannot serve as a conclusion gotten from the information.
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The information given claims that all seven of the accused plea-bargained to avoid trial, and eventually ended up with reduced sentences. This means that their main purpose of the plea-bargain is to avoid trial and not necessarily because of the reduced sentences.
OPTION E - INCORRECT
There is no indication of this in the information provided. So, it cannot serve as a conclusion to the information.
