Last visit was: 03 May 2024, 03:43 It is currently 03 May 2024, 03:43

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93024
Own Kudos [?]: 620890 [1]
Given Kudos: 81741
Send PM
Verbal Chat Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Posts: 1997
Own Kudos [?]: 1614 [1]
Given Kudos: 1680
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1377
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [1]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Posts: 1139
Own Kudos [?]: 1293 [0]
Given Kudos: 351
Location: India
Send PM
Re: At a certain investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisiti [#permalink]
At a certain investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisitions, the highest percentage of potential deals that are never completed are those in which the bank's senior partner was the lead negotiator. Each of the senior partner's colleagues, however, states unequivocally that she is the most adept negotiator at the bank.

Which one of the following, if true, goes furthest toward showing that these two statements could both be correct?

Pre-thinking- We need to see, what is the reason for such discrepancy.

A. The current senior partner has a better record of success than her immediate predecessor did. -> So, we are saying she is better, one statement is true. But does it answer why she failed to deliver results. Incorrect.

B. Many of the junior partners were trained by the senior partner when they first joined the firm. -> Irrelevant. Training and success of senior partner is very remote to link.

C. The senior partner works only on potential deals that have the least chance of coming to fruition. -> Now, we can keep both facts. She is talented but, she has always deals which are tough nuts to crack, so she failed multiple times. If we see closely, we are pointing out the issue of deals, she is working on, not on the merit of senior partner. It makes sense. Let's keep it.

D. The number of mergers in which the investment bank has been involved has declined slightly in each of the past three years. -> I don't see any link here with talent senior partner loosing cases. Irrelevant.

E. The senior partner was chosen by the board of directors of the bank's parent company, a large publishing conglomerate. -> Irrelevant again, Her selection doesn't link with her failure rate.

So, I think C. :)
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17254
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: At a certain investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisiti [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: At a certain investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisiti [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6925 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne