Question Description
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?a)No clear cut answer as to the legality of SWIFTs cooperation existedb)SWIFT failed to adequately consult its legal staff before deciding to cooperatec)The volume of money routed through SWIFT declined after its cooperation became publicd)U.S. authorities threatened criminal charges if SWIFT refused their subpoenase)Treasury Department officials objected to the publication of information about its classified programCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.