GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Directions: Read the passage carefully and an...
Start Learning for Free
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 group's 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 SWIFT's compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFT's decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.
Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Department's requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFT's 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 government's use of data breached some parts of international law.
Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the government's 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 government's 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 SWIFT's 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. The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:
- a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complex
- b)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it made
- c)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simple
- d)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were private
- e)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperation
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as foll...
In order to see more clearly how the author uses a specific word, examine the context. In this case, the context of the word "ostensibly" is that members of the public and financial community expressed outrage upon learning that SWIFT turned over to the government data they believed to be private (hence the word "ostensibly"--the data were apparently or seemingly private). This fact that the data were supposedly private plays an important role in explaining the public outrage and debate.
Context: "SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFT’s compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFT's decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications."
- Although this is true, it is not until later in the passage that it becomes clear that the ethical choice facing SWIFT seemed complex.
- The passage never addresses whether members of the government felt the request for data was problematic, legally questionable, or a breach of trust.
- The immediate context deals with public reaction. Further, the passage never addresses what the newspapers thought about publishing the controversial story.
- The author's word choice emphasized the feeling of shock over data that were supposed to be private being turned over. Ostensibly helps amplify why members of the public and financial community experienced surprise.
- Although this is true, it has no relation to the meaning and use of "ostensibly".
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as foll...
In order to see more clearly how the author uses a specific word, examine the context. In this case, the context of the word "ostensibly" is that members of the public and financial community expressed outrage upon learning that SWIFT turned over to the government data they believed to be private (hence the word "ostensibly"--the data were apparently or seemingly private). This fact that the data were supposedly private plays an important role in explaining the public outrage and debate.
Context: "SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFT’s compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFT's decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications."
- Although this is true, it is not until later in the passage that it becomes clear that the ethical choice facing SWIFT seemed complex.
- The passage never addresses whether members of the government felt the request for data was problematic, legally questionable, or a breach of trust.
- The immediate context deals with public reaction. Further, the passage never addresses what the newspapers thought about publishing the controversial story.
- The author's word choice emphasized the feeling of shock over data that were supposed to be private being turned over. Ostensibly helps amplify why members of the public and financial community experienced surprise.
- Although this is true, it has no relation to the meaning and use of "ostensibly".
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Similar GMAT Doubts
Top Courses for GMATView all
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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that:a)The ethical decision facing SWIFT seemed complexb)The U.S. government saw no problems in the request it madec)Four major U.S. newspapers thought on the surface that the decision to publish the story was simpled)Users of SWIFT believed their financial data and communications were privatee)Members of the public reacted with anger upon learning of SWIFT’s cooperationCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup