#3 - Despite the enormous number of transactions

[emilysnoddon]

Hello,

For this question I eliminated answer choice A because I felt as though just because they use a different set of programs to double check large transactions doesn't mean that it is extremely unlikely that the error will not be detected by the bank's internal audit procedures. I was attracted to answer choice D on the other hand because I felt as though it addressed bank auditors directly and suggested that the ratio is higher thus it is less likely for errors to occur. Please let me know where I went astray in my thinking.

Thank you,

Emily

[David Boyle]

Hello,

For this question I eliminated answer choice A because I felt as though just because they use a different set of programs to double check large transactions doesn't mean that it is extremely unlikely that the error will not be detected by the bank's internal audit procedures. I was attracted to answer choice D on the other hand because I felt as though it addressed bank auditors directly and suggested that the ratio is higher thus it is less likely for errors to occur. Please let me know where I went astray in my thinking.

Thank you,

Emily

Hello Emily,

"The average ratio of bank auditors to customer accounts has slowly increased over the past 100 years.", answer D, may be somewhat helpful, but not very much; it's just a "slow increase", after all. By contrast, with answer A, it shows that banks tend to do a thorough double-check if there is a large sum of money involved, which nicely fits the stimulus.

Hope this helps,
David

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

So for this MBT question I chose C, I made the assumption that because is required to send a customer a monthly statement it is more likely that the bank would spot an error. So would this be irrelevant b/c the stimulus is concerned with the banks internal audit process?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sarah,

Yep, you answered your own question! You're exactly right.

[asuper]

Hello,
I just wanted to further flesh out my thought process for this question:
We should focus on the fact they refer to the banks internal audit procedures as having the ability to detect the error, right? In reading through the answer choices the first time, I was searching for an answer that referenced procedures. I kept A as a contender because it was talking about processing using computer programs which could very well be a part of the procedures. However, I chose C due to the "required by law" portion. I thought "okay if its required by law then it definitely is a part of the procedure. However, when I did my blind review, I considered that because they are sending a monthly statement to the customers, perhaps the people sending the statements arent the ones catching the error but the customers. Could that be a way of thinking of the answer choices, thus leading to the answer A?

[Claire Horan]

Hi asuper,

Good analysis! Yes, you are right to eliminate all answer choices where the errors are not caught by the "internal audit procedures." You can be sure that the computer programs are part of the "audit procedures" because they "double-check" the large transactions. Another reason answer choice (A) is correct is that it explains why errors in large transactions, specifically, would be caught.

[lsatretaker]

Hello,

Two questions. First, this doesn't feel like an MBT-MSS question, because the right answer supports the stimulus, whereas on an MBT-MSS question, the answer can be inferred from the stimulus. I think that's what tripped me up. Once I realized it was more like a strengthen question, I found the right answer. What kind of question is it?

Second, why is B wrong? Wouldn't such a standard ensure that the error is detected? I selected A because it seemed to fit the idea of "internal audit procedures," which would be irrelevant if deposits required ID. But on blind review, I changed it to B because B seemed more like a slam dunk. I.e., if we were in a world with such a standard, it would be true that "it is extremely unlikely" that a deposit error were "not ... detected."

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hello,

Two questions. First, this doesn't feel like an MBT-MSS question, because the right answer supports the stimulus, whereas on an MBT-MSS question, the answer can be inferred from the stimulus. I think that's what tripped me up. Once I realized it was more like a strengthen question, I found the right answer. What kind of question is it?

Strengthen. "Most strongly supports the claim above" is the key phrasing there in italics. I'm looking at our database and it shows as Strengthen. I see someone above erroneously mentioned MBT, but that was a student. Or do you see this elsewhere as MBT?

Second, why is B wrong? Wouldn't such a standard ensure that the error is detected? I selected A because it seemed to fit the idea of "internal audit procedures," which would be irrelevant if deposits required ID. But on blind review, I changed it to B because B seemed more like a slam dunk. I.e., if we were in a world with such a standard, it would be true that "it is extremely unlikely" that a deposit error were "not ... detected."

It's because (B) focuses on customers presenting ID, which identifies them, but it doesn't say what the bank is doing aside checking ID. It could be as simple as, "Ok, I see from your ID that you are Jane Smith, so let's make this transaction." Contrast that with the language used in the stimulus, again with italics added: "it is extremely unlikely that the error will not be detected by the bank's internal audit procedures." so, we are trying to support the fact that the bank will find it somehow, which (A) does very directly (and includes the large sum aspect) vs (B) which gives no real certainty.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[lsatretaker]

Ahhhh. Yes, that makes sense. Thank you. As I mentioned, I feel like I knew what the test writers were getting at when I was timed, but then over-thought it on blind review. Then I couldn't stop thinking about the wrong answer.

Appreciate all the help. Also, I just started listening to your podcast; it's great!