Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an architecture firm, from competing for city contracts for five...

GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions

Source: Mock

Two Part Analysis

Verbal - CR

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Person A: One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait, an architecture firm, from competing for city contracts for five years because the firm and its head executives were convicted of bribing city officials to obtain a contract. Due to another of the laws, these actions also resulted in the imprisonment of those executives, who are no longer employed by the firm. In this case, the law prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts most harms the firm's employees who were innocent of the wrongdoing. [Insert Sentence 1.]

Person B: The employees of Gesait benefited from the illegally obtained contract, and other firms were harmed. The five-year prohibition redresses the wrong done to other firms and eliminates the benefits to employees of Gesait from the firm's illegal activities. [Insert Sentence 2.]

Select for Sentence 1 the sentence that best completes Person A's argument, and select for Sentence 2 the sentence that best completes Person B's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

The punishment of Gesait has no effect on Gesait employees.

The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair.

The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair.

Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair.

Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair.

Solution

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

First, Create an Argument Analysis Table

Text from Passage	Analysis
"One of our city's anticorruption laws prohibits Gesait...from competing for city contracts for five years"	What it says: Gesait can't bid on city contracts for 5 years What it does: Establishes the legal consequence being debated Key connections: This is the central issue both speakers address Visualization: Timeline showing 5-year prohibition period
"the firm and its head executives were convicted of bribing city officials"	What it says: Both company and executives were found guilty of bribery What it does: Provides the reason for the punishment Key connections: Justifies why the law was applied Visualization: Chain of causation: bribery → conviction → penalties
"the imprisonment of those executives, who are no longer employed by the firm"	What it says: Guilty executives went to jail and left the company What it does: Shows executives faced personal consequences Key connections: Sets up Person A's argument about innocent employees Visualization: Separation between punished executives and remaining employees
"the law...most harms the firm's employees who were innocent"	What it says: Innocent employees suffer from the prohibition What it does: Person A's main claim - identifies victims of the law Key connections: Central to Person A's implied conclusion Visualization: Innocent employees bearing consequences of others' actions
"The employees of Gesait benefited from the illegally obtained contract"	What it says: All employees gained from the illegal activity What it does: Person B's counterargument - challenges "innocent victim" narrative Key connections: Directly opposes Person A's characterization Visualization: Benefits flowing to all employees from tainted contract
"other firms were harmed"	What it says: Competitor companies suffered from Gesait's illegal advantage What it does: Identifies different victims - competing firms Key connections: Supports Person B's justification for the prohibition Visualization: Unfair competitive disadvantage to law-abiding firms
"The five-year prohibition redresses the wrong...and eliminates the benefits"	What it says: The ban corrects past injustice and removes unfair gains What it does: Person B's justification for the prohibition Key connections: Leads to Person B's implied conclusion Visualization: Balancing scales of justice through the prohibition

Second, Identify Argument Structure

Person A's Argument:

Main conclusion: [To be inserted - Sentence 1]
Supporting evidence: The prohibition harms innocent employees while guilty executives are already punished
Assumption: Employees who didn't participate in bribery shouldn't suffer consequences
Viewpoint: Focus on fairness to individuals within the company

Person B's Argument:

Main conclusion: [To be inserted - Sentence 2]
Supporting evidence: Employees benefited from illegal contracts; other firms were harmed; prohibition corrects this
Assumption: All who benefited from wrongdoing bear some responsibility
Viewpoint: Focus on fairness to competing firms and market integrity

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

First, Understand What Each Part Asks

Part 1 (Sentence 1): We need to complete Person A's argument about the prohibition harming innocent employees
Part 2 (Sentence 2): We need to complete Person B's argument about the prohibition addressing wrongs and eliminating unfair benefits
Relationship: These completions will present opposing conclusions about the same policy

Second, Generate Prethinking Based on Question Type

This is a logical completion question - we need statements that naturally conclude each person's reasoning:

For logical completion:
- What conclusion follows from each person's premises?
- What judgment would each person make about the prohibition?

Third, Develop Specific Prethinking for Each Part

For Part 1 (Person A):

Given: Innocent employees are harmed by the prohibition
Given: Guilty executives already face imprisonment
Prethinking: "Therefore, the prohibition is unfair/unjust/should be reconsidered"

For Part 2 (Person B):

Given: Employees benefited from illegal contracts
Given: Other firms were harmed
Given: Prohibition corrects these wrongs
Prethinking: "Therefore, the prohibition is fair/justified/appropriate"

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Choice 1: "The punishment of Gesait has no effect on Gesait employees."

What it says: Employees aren't affected by the company's punishment
For Part 1: Contradicts Person A's entire premise that employees ARE harmed
For Part 2: Contradicts Person B's premise that prohibition affects employees
Verdict: Doesn't work for either part

Choice 2: "The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is unfair."

What it says: The imprisonment law (not the prohibition) is unfair
For Part 1: Doesn't complete the argument about the prohibition harming employees
For Part 2: Contradicts Person B's support for accountability
Verdict: Wrong focus - addresses imprisonment, not prohibition

Choice 3: "The law that resulted in the imprisonment of the executives is fair."

What it says: The imprisonment law is justified
For Part 1: Doesn't address Person A's concern about the prohibition
For Part 2: Doesn't complete Person B's argument about the prohibition
Verdict: Again, wrong focus - not about the prohibition

Choice 4: "Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair."

What it says: The prohibition (the exact issue being debated) is unjust
For Part 1: PERFECT - completes Person A's argument that innocent employees suffer unfairly
For Part 2: Directly contradicts Person B's position
Verdict: Excellent for Part 1

Choice 5: "Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair."

What it says: The prohibition is justified
For Part 1: Contradicts Person A's entire argument
For Part 2: PERFECT - completes Person B's argument that the prohibition appropriately addresses wrongs
Verdict: Excellent for Part 2

The Correct Answers

For Part 1 (Sentence 1): Choice 4 - "Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is unfair."

This naturally concludes Person A's reasoning that innocent employees are being unfairly punished

For Part 2 (Sentence 2): Choice 5 - "Prohibiting Gesait from competing for city contracts is fair."

This naturally concludes Person B's reasoning that the prohibition justly corrects past wrongs

Common Traps to Highlight

Choices 2 & 3 (about imprisonment law):

These seem relevant because imprisonment is mentioned in the passage
However, they're traps because neither person is arguing about the fairness of imprisonment
The debate centers on the prohibition from contracts, not the imprisonment

Choice 1 (no effect on employees):

This might initially seem like it could support Person A
But it actually contradicts both arguments, which acknowledge employees ARE affected
It's a distractor that misrepresents the fundamental premise of the debate

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...