Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Ethics board member: All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates. Furthermore, regardless of whether it has been determined if an action is legal, it is always permissible to ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics.
Statements: Without exception, an action is permissible under the code of ethics 1_ it is legal in all of the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Furthermore, one is permitted to ask the ethics board to review an action for conformity to the code of ethics 2_ the legality of the action has been established. Select for 1 and for 2 the two different options that complete the statements so that they most accurately paraphrase the Ethics board member's assertions. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
| "All actions that are permissible under the code of ethics are also legal in all of the jurisdictions in which our company operates." |
|
| "Regardless of whether it has been determined if an action is legal, it is always permissible to ask the ethics board to review the action for conformity to the code of ethics." |
|
Key Patterns Identified
- Established facts:
- Permissible actions must be legal in all jurisdictions
- Requesting ethics review has no prerequisites
- Relationships:
- Permissibility requires legality (but not necessarily vice versa)
- Review requests are unconditionally allowed
- Boundaries:
- We don't know if all legal actions are permissible
- We don't know the review process outcomes
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding Each Part
- Part 1 Focus: Relationship between permissibility and legality
- Part 2 Focus: Conditions for requesting ethics review
- Relationship: Both parts paraphrase different assertions from the ethics board member
Valid Inferences Generated
- For Part 1: An action can be permissible ONLY IF it's legal (necessary condition)
- For Part 2: One can ask for review WHETHER OR NOT legality is established
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Analyzing Options
"if only if"
- What it claims: Establishes a conditional relationship
- Fact Support: Matches "all permissible actions are legal"
- Logical Validity: Correctly captures the one-way requirement
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 1
"unless"
- What it claims: Would mean "permissible if not legal"
- Fact Support: Contradicts the passage
- Logical Validity: Invalid - reverses the required relationship
- Part Suitability: Neither part
"whether or not"
- What it claims: Independence from a condition
- Fact Support: Matches "regardless of whether it has been determined"
- Logical Validity: Perfectly captures the unconditional permission
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 2
"or"
- What it claims: Alternative relationship
- Fact Support: Doesn't match any passage assertion
- Logical Validity: Doesn't establish the right logical connection
- Part Suitability: Neither part
Answer Selection
- Part 1: "if only if" - This captures that permissibility requires legality
- Part 2: "whether or not" - This shows review permission is independent of legal determination
- Verification: Both answers directly paraphrase the board member's specific assertions without adding or subtracting meaning