Version 1: The client shall pay $4{,}500 (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not...

GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions

Source: Mock

Two Part Analysis

Verbal - CR

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Version 1: The client shall pay $\$4{,}500$ (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of $\$100$, and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed $1\%$ of the $\$4{,}500$ fee.

Version 2: The client shall pay $\$4{,}500$ (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017. If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of $\$100$ for each month in which the fee remains unpaid. The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed $1\%$ of the fee.

Select for Problem with Version 1 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 1 is flawed, and select for Problem with Version 2 the statement that most accurately describes a way in which Version 2 is flawed. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Problem with Version 1

Problem with Version 2

It uses the term client in two mutually exclusive ways without acknowledging the difference in meaning

It proposes a definition for a technical term even though that term is irrelevant to the topic it addresses.

It contains requirements that contradict each other.

It uses the words that date without any indication of what date they refer to.

It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition.

Solution

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

Argument Analysis Table

Text from Passage	Analysis
Version 1: "The client shall pay $\$4{,}500$ (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Client must pay $\$4{,}500$ by August 7, 2017 What it does: Establishes payment amount and deadline Key connections: Sets up the baseline requirement Visualization: Payment due = $\$4{,}500$
Version 1: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of $\$100$"	What it says: Late payment triggers a $\$100$ charge What it does: Specifies penalty amount Key connections: Creates first part of late fee structure Visualization: Late charge = $\$100$
Version 1: "and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the $\$4{,}500$ fee."	What it says: Late charge cannot exceed 1% of $\$4{,}500$ What it does: Attempts to cap the late charge Key connections: Contradicts the $\$100$ late charge Visualization: $1\% \text{ of } \$4{,}500 = \$45$ (but late charge is $\$100$!)
Version 2: "The client shall pay $\$4{,}500$ (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Same payment requirement as Version 1 What it does: Establishes baseline Key connections: Identical to Version 1 start Visualization: Payment due = $\$4{,}500$
Version 2: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of $\$100$ for each month in which the fee remains unpaid."	What it says: $\$100$ charge per month for late payment What it does: Creates monthly penalty structure Key connections: Accumulating charges over time Visualization: Monthly late charge = $\$100 \times \text{number of months}$
Version 2: "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee."	What it says: Total amount will be more than 1% of fee What it does: States an obvious fact Key connections: Since fee is $\$4{,}500$, this is always true Visualization: $\$4{,}500 + \text{any amount} > \$45$ (always true!)

Argument Structure

Both versions attempt to establish:

A payment requirement ($\$4{,}500$ by August 7, 2017)
A late payment penalty structure
Some kind of condition or limitation regarding the charges

The key issue is that each version contains a logical flaw in how it structures the late payment terms.

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

Understanding What Each Part Asks

We need to:

Part 1: Identify the flaw in Version 1
Part 2: Identify the flaw in Version 2

Both parts are asking us to diagnose logical or structural problems in contract language.

Prethinking for Each Version

Version 1 Flaw:

The contract states a late charge of $\$100$, but then says this charge "shall not exceed 1 percent of the $\$4{,}500$ fee." Since 1% of $\$4{,}500$ equals $\$45$, and the late charge is $\$100$, we have a direct contradiction. The contract simultaneously requires and prohibits a $\$100$ late charge.

Version 2 Flaw:

The contract states that "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee." Since the fee is $\$4{,}500$ and 1% of that is $\$45$, any total that includes the $\$4{,}500$ fee will obviously exceed $\$45$. This condition is necessarily true and provides no meaningful information.

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Choice 1: "It uses the term client in two mutually exclusive ways without acknowledging the difference in meaning"

Neither version shows different uses of "client"
Not applicable to either version

Choice 2: "It proposes a definition for a technical term even though that term is irrelevant to the topic it addresses."

Both versions define "the fee" as $\$4{,}500$, which is relevant
Not applicable to either version

Choice 3: "It contains requirements that contradict each other."

Perfect match for Version 1: The $\$100$ late charge contradicts the "not exceed 1%" requirement
Not applicable to Version 2 (no contradiction there)

Choice 4: "It uses the words that date without any indication of what date they refer to."

Both versions clearly specify "7 August 2017"
"That date" clearly refers back to this specified date
Not applicable to either version

Choice 5: "It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."

Not applicable to Version 1
Perfect match for Version 2: The condition that $\$4{,}500 + \text{charges} > \$45$ is always true

The Correct Answers

For Problem with Version 1: "It contains requirements that contradict each other."

Version 1 requires a $\$100$ late charge but also requires the late charge not exceed $\$45$ (1% of $\$4{,}500$)

For Problem with Version 2: "It stipulates a necessarily true but pointless and uninformative condition."

Version 2's statement that the total will exceed 1% of the fee is mathematically guaranteed and serves no purpose

Common Traps to Highlight

Some students might be tempted by:

"Uses the words that date": While both versions do use this phrase, the date reference is clear
Confusing the flaws: Each version has a distinct type of logical problem - contradiction vs. tautology
Missing the mathematical calculation: Not recognizing that $1\% \text{ of } \$4{,}500 = \$45$ is crucial to identifying both flaws

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...

Text from Passage	Analysis
Version 1: "The client shall pay \(\$4{,}500\) (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Client must pay \(\$4{,}500\) by August 7, 2017 What it does: Establishes payment amount and deadline Key connections: Sets up the baseline requirement Visualization: Payment due = \(\$4{,}500\)
Version 1: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of \(\$100\)"	What it says: Late payment triggers a \(\$100\) charge What it does: Specifies penalty amount Key connections: Creates first part of late fee structure Visualization: Late charge = \(\$100\)
Version 1: "and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the \(\$4{,}500\) fee."	What it says: Late charge cannot exceed 1% of \(\$4{,}500\) What it does: Attempts to cap the late charge Key connections: Contradicts the \(\$100\) late charge Visualization: \(1\% \text{ of } \$4{,}500 = \$45\) (but late charge is \(\$100\)!)
Version 2: "The client shall pay \(\$4{,}500\) (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Same payment requirement as Version 1 What it does: Establishes baseline Key connections: Identical to Version 1 start Visualization: Payment due = \(\$4{,}500\)
Version 2: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of \(\$100\) for each month in which the fee remains unpaid."	What it says: \(\$100\) charge per month for late payment What it does: Creates monthly penalty structure Key connections: Accumulating charges over time Visualization: Monthly late charge = \(\$100 \times \text{number of months}\)
Version 2: "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee."	What it says: Total amount will be more than 1% of fee What it does: States an obvious fact Key connections: Since fee is \(\$4{,}500\), this is always true Visualization: \(\$4{,}500 + \text{any amount} > \$45\) (always true!)

Text from Passage	Analysis
Version 1: "The client shall pay \(\$4{,}500\) (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Client must pay \(\$4{,}500\) by August 7, 2017 What it does: Establishes payment amount and deadline Key connections: Sets up the baseline requirement Visualization: Payment due = \(\$4{,}500\)
Version 1: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall also pay a late charge of \(\$100\)"	What it says: Late payment triggers a \(\$100\) charge What it does: Specifies penalty amount Key connections: Creates first part of late fee structure Visualization: Late charge = \(\$100\)
Version 1: "and the total amount of that late charge shall not exceed 1 percent of the \(\$4{,}500\) fee."	What it says: Late charge cannot exceed 1% of \(\$4{,}500\) What it does: Attempts to cap the late charge Key connections: Contradicts the \(\$100\) late charge Visualization: \(1\% \text{ of } \$4{,}500 = \$45\) (but late charge is \(\$100\)!)
Version 2: "The client shall pay \(\$4{,}500\) (the fee) on or before 7 August 2017."	What it says: Same payment requirement as Version 1 What it does: Establishes baseline Key connections: Identical to Version 1 start Visualization: Payment due = \(\$4{,}500\)
Version 2: "If the fee is not paid by that date, the client shall pay an additional charge of \(\$100\) for each month in which the fee remains unpaid."	What it says: \(\$100\) charge per month for late payment What it does: Creates monthly penalty structure Key connections: Accumulating charges over time Visualization: Monthly late charge = \(\$100 \times \text{number of months}\)
Version 2: "The total amount of the fee plus any additional charges will exceed 1 percent of the fee."	What it says: Total amount will be more than 1% of fee What it does: States an obvious fact Key connections: Since fee is \(\$4{,}500\), this is always true Visualization: \(\$4{,}500 + \text{any amount} > \$45\) (always true!)