Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources Practice Questions — GMAT

The following documents detail fleet operations for a regional transport firm in 2026:

Tab 1: Fleet Maintenance Policy (Section 4)
- 4.2 Preventative Maintenance Limit: Scheduled routine maintenance downtime for heavy cargo vans must not exceed an average of $8\text{ hours}$ per vehicle per quarter.
- 4.5 Emergency Exemption: Downtime resulting from emergency powertrain overhauls is classified as Unscheduled Fleet Services and is strictly exempt from the $8\text{-hour}$ preventative maintenance downtime cap.

Tab 2: Q2 Internal Audit Report
- The Heavy Cargo Van Division operated $120\text{ vehicles}$ during Q2 2026.
- Total fleet downtime recorded for maintenance during Q2 was $1,440\text{ hours}$ , yielding an average of $12\text{ hours}$ of maintenance downtime per vehicle.
- Finding: The division violated Section 4.2 by exceeding the maximum allowable routine downtime limit by $50\%$ .

Tab 3: Service Maintenance Logs Excerpt
- In Q2 2026, $30$ of the $120\text{ heavy cargo vans}$ required emergency powertrain overhauls following a manufacturer recall, logging a total of $720\text{ hours}$ under emergency repairs.
- The remaining $720\text{ hours}$ of total maintenance downtime across the division were incurred for standard routine preventative maintenance.

Statement to Evaluate:
Based on the information provided across the three sources, the internal audit report's finding that the division violated the routine downtime policy in Q2 2026 is invalid because it improperly included exempt emergency repair downtime in its calculation.

True

False

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True. The audit finding is invalid because excluding the

720\text{ hours}

of exempt emergency powertrain repairs reduces the relevant routine maintenance downtime to

720\text{ hours}

, which averages

\le 8\text{ hours}

per vehicle and complies with Section 4.2.

The evaluated statement is correct (True) because synthesizing Section 4.5 from Tab 1 with the downtime breakdown in Tab 3 shows that

720\text{ hours}

were exempt emergency repairs. Subtracting these leaves

720\text{ routine maintenance hours}

, which meets the requirement of

\le 8\text{ hours}

per vehicle.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the conflict between the sources.

Tab 2 claims a violation based on an average of

12\text{ hours}

downtime per vehicle (

1,440\text{ total hours} / 120\text{ vans}

), whereas Tab 1 Section 4.5 outlines a specific policy exemption for emergency powertrain overhauls.

Resolving discrepancies requires checking whether reported figures conform to defined policy boundaries and exceptions.

2

Extract exempt downtime using Tab 3 maintenance logs.

Emergency powertrain overhauls accounted for

720\text{ hours}

of downtime in Q2.

Section 4.5 explicitly states emergency powertrain overhaul hours are exempt from the routine maintenance cap.

3

Calculate non-exempt routine preventative maintenance downtime.

Total downtime (

1,440\text{ hours}

) minus exempt emergency downtime (

720\text{ hours}

) =

720\text{ non-exempt routine downtime hours}

.

Only non-exempt hours should be evaluated against the Section 4.2 preventative maintenance limit.

4

Evaluate compliance against the policy threshold.

720\text{ routine hours} / 120\text{ vans} = 6\text{ hours per van}

(or

720\text{ routine hours} / 90\text{ routine vans} = 8\text{ hours per van}

). Both values are

\le 8\text{ hours}

.

Because the compliant routine average does not exceed

8\text{ hours}

, the audit report's finding of a violation was invalid.

Key Concept

Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources

Question 2Question →

The following multi-source documents detail the energy compliance policies and operating records for a data center operator.

### Tab 1: Corporate Sustainability Mandate (2026)
Section 4.2 specifies that at least $80\%$ of a facility's adjusted monthly electricity consumption must come from certified renewable sources (such as solar or wind). If utility grid energy exceeds $20\%$ of adjusted total monthly consumption, an immediate penalty fee of $\$50$ per excess megawatt-hour ( $\text{MWh}$ ) of grid energy is assessed.

### Tab 2: June 2026 Operations Log – Northern Facility
- Total electricity drawn: $10,000\text{ MWh}$
- Certified solar energy consumed: $7,200\text{ MWh}$
- Utility grid energy drawn: $2,800\text{ MWh}$
- Recorded non-compliance penalty fee: $\$0$

### Tab 3: Environmental Audit Memorandum
Under Directive 12-B, grid energy drawn during pre-approved peak-alert maintenance windows is exempt from compliance calculations up to a maximum of $1,000\text{ MWh}$ per month. Any exempt energy is subtracted from both the utility grid energy drawn and the total monthly consumption prior to evaluating the $80\%$ renewable threshold.

Which of the following statements, if true, best reconciles the apparent conflict between the general sustainability policy and the $\$0$ penalty recorded for the Northern Facility in June 2026?

During June 2026, the Northern Facility drew

1,000\text{ MWh}

of grid energy during pre-approved peak-alert maintenance, reducing its adjusted total consumption to

9,000\text{ MWh}

and making its solar share exactly

80\%

.

The facility calculated its

80\%

renewable requirement against only the

7,200\text{ MWh}

of solar energy rather than total energy consumed.

The

2,800\text{ MWh}

drawn from the grid was under an absolute unadjusted threshold cap of

3,000\text{ MWh}

specified in general operating guidelines.

The penalty fee of

\$50

per MWh is calculated using the total grid consumption as the denominator rather than total energy drawn.

The facility offset its excess grid consumption by purchasing carbon credits after the end of June 2026.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: During June 2026, the Northern Facility drew $1,000\text{ MWh}$ of grid energy during pre-approved peak-alert maintenance, reducing its adjusted total consumption to $9,000\text{ MWh}$ and making its solar share exactly $80\%$ .

Answer

During June 2026, the Northern Facility drew

1,000\text{ MWh}

of grid energy during pre-approved peak-alert maintenance, reducing its adjusted total consumption to

9,000\text{ MWh}

and making its solar share exactly

80\%

.

The correct answer reconciles the tabs by applying Directive 12-B from Tab 3. Exempting

1,000\text{ MWh}

of peak-alert maintenance reduces total consumption to

9,000\text{ MWh}

and grid energy to

1,800\text{ MWh}

. The solar share becomes

\frac{7,200}{9,000} = 80\%

, which satisfies the

80\%

renewable requirement in Tab 1 and results in a

\$0

penalty.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the apparent discrepancy across sources.

Unadjusted grid consumption is

2,800\text{ MWh}

out of

10,000\text{ MWh}

(

28\%

), which exceeds the

20\%

limit (

2,000\text{ MWh}

). However, Tab 2 shows a

\$0

penalty.

To resolve the discrepancy, we must find a valid rule from Tab 3 that adjusts the compliance threshold.

2

Apply the exemption provision in Tab 3 (Directive 12-B).

If

1,000\text{ MWh}

of grid energy qualifies as exempt peak-alert maintenance, subtract

1,000\text{ MWh}

from total energy (

10,000 - 1,000 = 9,000\text{ MWh}

) and from grid energy (

2,800 - 1,000 = 1,800\text{ MWh}

).

Tab 3 explicitly states that exempt energy is subtracted from both utility grid energy drawn and total monthly consumption before calculating percentage compliance.

3

Verify compliance percentage with adjusted figures.

Solar proportion =

\frac{7,200\text{ MWh}}{9,000\text{ MWh}} = 0.80 = 80\%

. Grid proportion =

\frac{1,800\text{ MWh}}{9,000\text{ MWh}} = 0.20 = 20\%

.

Since the grid energy share does not exceed

20\%

, no penalty fee is assessed, explaining the

\$0

fee in Tab 2.

Key Concept

Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources

Question 3Question →

The following three sources provide details regarding a Phase II clinical trial for a new therapeutic candidate:

Tab 1: Clinical Trial Protocol (Section 3.2)
Subjects in Arm A are scheduled to receive a daily dose of $50\text{ mg}$ of Active Drug X for $14\text{ consecutive days}$ , followed immediately by a $7\text{-day}$ washout period during which $0\text{ mg}$ of medication is administered. Subjects in Arm B receive a matching placebo daily for $21\text{ consecutive days}$ .

Tab 2: Central Pharmacy Dispensing Log
During the 21-day trial window, the central pharmacy logged a total cumulative dosage of $700\text{ mg}$ of Active Drug X dispensed per subject in Arm A, and $0\text{ mg}$ dispensed per subject in Arm B.

Tab 3: Independent Auditor Compliance Report
The compliance audit reveals that subjects in Arm A logged active pill ingestion on each of the $21\text{ days}$ of the trial window, recording no days with zero medication intake.

Which of the following statements, if true, would help explain or resolve the apparent discrepancy between the protocol specification, the pharmacy dispensing logs, and the auditor's compliance report? Select all that apply.

Select all that apply

Arm A subjects ingested a reduced daily dose of approximately

33.3\text{ mg}

per day evenly over all 21 days rather than

50\text{ mg}

per day for 14 days.

Subjects in Arm A received 21 daily tablets containing

50\text{ mg}

of Active Drug X each.

The central pharmacy pre-packaged the

700\text{ mg}

total allocation into 21 lower-dose daily capsules instead of 14 standard-dose capsules.

The 7-day washout period was mistakenly enforced during the first 7 days of the trial rather than the final 7 days.

Arm B subjects mistakenly received the

50\text{ mg}

daily dose intended for Arm A during the washout period.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Arm A subjects ingested a reduced daily dose of approximately $33.3\text{ mg}$ per day evenly over all 21 days rather than $50\text{ mg}$ per day for 14 days.; The central pharmacy pre-packaged the $700\text{ mg}$ total allocation into 21 lower-dose daily capsules instead of 14 standard-dose capsules.

Answer

The discrepancy is resolved by options stating that subjects ingested approximately 33.3 mg per day across all 21 days, or that the pharmacy pre-packaged the 700 mg allocation into 21 lower-dose daily capsules.

The correct options present scenarios where the total active drug allocation of 700 mg (from the pharmacy logs) is spread across all 21 trial days (from the compliance audit), resulting in a lower daily dosage of approximately 33.3 mg per day. This reconciles the 21 active ingestion days with the 700 mg total quantity dispensed.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the conflict between the sources.

Tab 1 prescribes

50\text{ mg/day} \times 14\text{ days} = 700\text{ mg}

plus a 7-day washout (0 mg/day). Tab 2 confirms a total of

700\text{ mg}

dispensed for Arm A. Tab 3 shows active ingestion on all 21 days (0 washout days).

To resolve the conflict, any valid hypothesis must account for 21 active days of ingestion while keeping the total active drug amount at

700\text{ mg}

.

2

Evaluate hypotheses regarding daily dose re-apportionment.

Dividing

700\text{ mg}

by 21 days yields

\frac{700}{21} = 33.33\text{ mg/day}

.

If subjects took

\approx 33.3\text{ mg}

per day for 21 days, or if the pharmacy packaged

700\text{ mg}

into 21 daily capsules, both Tab 2 (

700\text{ mg}

total) and Tab 3 (21 active days) are satisfied.

Key Concept

Discrepancy Resolution across Multi-Source Documents

Question 4Question →

Tab 1: Corporate Shipping Compliance Policy
All international packages weighing over $10\text{ kg}$ must undergo a mandatory customs security scan prior to dispatch, unless they are explicitly classified as "Priority Medical Supplies," which are exempt from routine pre-dispatch security scans.

Tab 2: Logistics Dispatch Log
On October 12, Package #402—an international package weighing $14\text{ kg}$ —was dispatched directly to its destination without undergoing a pre-dispatch customs security scan.

Which of the following statements, if true, best resolves the apparent discrepancy between the compliance policy in Tab 1 and the dispatch log in Tab 2?

Package #402 contained emergency surgical vaccines designated under the Priority Medical Supplies category.

Package #402 was an international shipment with a total weight of

14\text{ kg}

.

Customs security scans typically add an average processing delay of two hours to package dispatch times.

The weight of Package #402 exceeded the

10\text{ kg}

threshold by

40\%

, making security scanning unnecessary.

All international shipments dispatched on October 12 were processed under standard non-emergency operating conditions.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Package #402 contained emergency surgical vaccines designated under the Priority Medical Supplies category.

Answer

The statement explaining that Package #402 contained emergency surgical vaccines classified under Priority Medical Supplies resolves the discrepancy.

The option identifying Package #402 as containing emergency surgical vaccines under the Priority Medical Supplies category directly activates the policy exemption outlined in Tab 1. Since Tab 1 explicitly states that Priority Medical Supplies are exempt from routine security scans, this explains why the

14\text{ kg}

package in Tab 2 was dispatched without a scan, completely resolving the discrepancy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the conflict between the sources.

Tab 1 requires all international packages over

10\text{ kg}

to be scanned, but Tab 2 shows a

14\text{ kg}

international package dispatched without a scan.

Clear identification of the discrepancy is essential to finding its resolution.

2

Locate stated exceptions in the policy.

Tab 1 mentions one specific exception: packages classified as 'Priority Medical Supplies' are exempt from routine pre-dispatch security scans.

An explicit policy exception offers a logical bridge to reconcile non-scanning with compliance.

3

Evaluate the options for a statement that satisfies the exception criteria.

The option stating that Package #402 contained emergency surgical vaccines designated under Priority Medical Supplies establishes that the package qualified for the exemption.

This fully reconciles Tab 1 and Tab 2 without violating any stated rules.

Key Concept

Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources

Question 5Question →

Tab 1: Engineering Telemetry Summary
During Quarter 3, the facility's grid-scale battery energy storage system logged a roundtrip charge-discharge efficiency of $94\%$ . Telemetry sensors recorded energy input and output strictly across the battery cell terminals during active storage cycles.

Tab 2: Financial Utility Billing Report
Energy billing records for Quarter 3 indicate that total kilowatt-hours ( $\text{kWh}$ ) purchased from the regional utility grid exceeded baseline operating projections by $25\%$ . Financial auditors concluded that net facility energy losses were far higher than the $6\%$ loss implied by battery telemetry.

Tab 3: Operations Maintenance Log
All auxiliary HVAC cooling units and thermal control systems operate on dedicated grid sub-circuits that bypass battery cell meters. Operational policy mandates continuous thermal conditioning whenever ambient site temperatures exceed $30^\circ\text{C}$ . During Quarter 3, site temperatures exceeded $30^\circ\text{C}$ for $65\%$ of operational hours.

Based on the information provided across the three tabs, which of the following statements, if true, help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the $94\%$ battery efficiency reported in Tab 1 and the $25\%$ excess energy consumption reported in Tab 2? Select all that apply.

Select all that apply

The battery telemetry in Tab 1 records power passing directly through cell terminals during active cycles, omitting energy consumed by auxiliary cooling units running on separate grid sub-circuits.

Prolonged ambient temperatures above

30^\circ\text{C}

in Quarter 3 triggered continuous operation of auxiliary cooling units, drawing substantial unmetered grid electricity.

Regional electricity supply tariffs increased by

25\%

per kilowatt-hour during peak demand hours throughout Quarter 3.

The internal chemical energy storage capacity of the battery cells degraded severely during Quarter 3 due to high operating temperatures.

Battery charging cycles took place predominantly during off-peak night hours when overall regional grid demand was low.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The battery telemetry in Tab 1 records power passing directly through cell terminals during active cycles, omitting energy consumed by auxiliary cooling units running on separate grid sub-circuits.; Prolonged ambient temperatures above $30^\circ\text{C}$ in Quarter 3 triggered continuous operation of auxiliary cooling units, drawing substantial unmetered grid electricity.

Answer

The statements resolving the discrepancy are: (1) battery telemetry measuring only terminal power while omitting auxiliary cooling power on separate sub-circuits, and (2) high ambient temperatures causing continuous operation of auxiliary cooling units that drew unmetered grid electricity.

The correct options work together to resolve the conflict by clarifying measurement scope. The statement noting that telemetry tracks only cell terminals explains that auxiliary HVAC power was excluded from Tab 1's efficiency calculation. The statement regarding high ambient temperatures triggering continuous auxiliary cooling provides the empirical cause for why Tab 2's grid purchases were 25% above projections.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the conflict between sources

Tab 1 reports high battery roundtrip efficiency (94%, or 6% loss), while Tab 2 shows facility grid energy draw exceeding projections by 25% (implying large net energy losses).

Resolving a discrepancy requires finding factors that make both reported figures factually true within their respective measurement boundaries.

2

Cross-reference operational boundaries and exceptions across tabs

Tab 1 specifies that telemetry measures energy strictly across battery cell terminals. Tab 3 notes that auxiliary HVAC systems run on dedicated grid sub-circuits bypassing cell meters and operate continuously when ambient temperature exceeds 30°C (which occurred 65% of the time in Q3).

Connecting the unmetered auxiliary HVAC draw to high Q3 temperatures explains why utility grid energy purchases (Tab 2) were 25% higher even though the battery cells themselves operated at 94% efficiency (Tab 1).

3

Evaluate candidate statements for valid reconciliation

The statement highlighting separate sub-circuit metering boundaries and the statement identifying high temperature HVAC activation together explain the missing energy draw without contradicting Tab 1.

Both valid hypotheses work together to explain why total grid draw exceeded battery-only telemetry projections.

Key Concept

Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources

Question 6Question →

Tab 1: Supply Chain Audit Memorandum (Q1 2026)
The quarterly audit report concludes that Supplier Alpha achieved a $0\%$ defect rate for all $10{}000$ units of Component X received during Q1 2026. The audit's conclusion relies strictly on receiving-stage inspection records confirming that $100\%$ of delivered batches were logged as defect-free upon arrival.

Tab 2: Quality Control Standard Operating Procedure
Standard receiving protocol requires all precision electronic parts to undergo Quality Check 1 (QC-1) for visual/physical integrity and Quality Check 2 (QC-2) for thermal stress resistance before entry into inventory. However, components procured under "Express Procurement" status bypass QC-2 at receiving and are immediately marked as "Cleared at Entry." For Express Procurement items, thermal stress defects are recorded later during final post-assembly stress testing.

Tab 3: Plant Operations Defect Log (Q1 2026)
All $10{}000$ units of Component X supplied by Supplier Alpha in Q1 2026 were procured under Express Procurement contracts. During final post-assembly stress testing of finished products, $400$ units of Component X suffered thermal breakdown and failed inspection.

Based on the information provided across the three tabs, which of the following statements help reconcile the apparent contradiction between the receiving audit's $0\%$ defect rate in Tab 1 and the $400$ thermal failures reported in Tab 3? Select all that apply.

Select all that apply

The

0\%

defect rate in the receiving audit reflects only initial QC-1 clearance, which Express Procurement shipments pass without receiving-stage thermal stress testing.

Thermal stress defects in Component X were captured only during final assembly testing because Express Procurement policy defers thermal testing for such shipments to the post-assembly stage.

Supplier Alpha's total shipment volume of

10{}000

units was too small to meet the threshold required for statistical sampling during receiving inspection.

Component X was reclassified as a non-precision part under the Quality Control Policy, completely exempting its batches from post-assembly defect logging.

The

400

failed units in Tab 3 represent a

4\%

failure rate calculated against total plant output across all suppliers rather than Supplier Alpha's specific delivery.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The $0\%$ defect rate in the receiving audit reflects only initial QC-1 clearance, which Express Procurement shipments pass without receiving-stage thermal stress testing.; Thermal stress defects in Component X were captured only during final assembly testing because Express Procurement policy defers thermal testing for such shipments to the post-assembly stage.

Answer

The statements explaining that the receiving audit only reflects initial QC-1 clearance without receiving-stage thermal testing, and that thermal stress defects were logged post-assembly due to Express Procurement policy deferral, correctly reconcile the discrepancy.

The apparent contradiction between the

0\%

defect rate at receiving (Tab 1) and the

400

thermal breakdowns during assembly (Tab 3) is resolved by Tab 2. Because Supplier Alpha's shipment was made under Express Procurement status, the parts bypassed receiving-stage thermal testing (QC-2) and were logged as 'Cleared' based solely on QC-1. Thermal stress failures were only revealed when testing occurred at final assembly. Thus, both the statement noting that receiving audit logs reflect only QC-1 clearance and the statement noting that thermal defects were deferred to post-assembly testing under Express Procurement policy correctly explain the discrepancy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1

Identify the core discrepancy between Tab 1 and Tab 3.

Tab 1 reports a

0\%

defect rate at receiving for

10{}000

units of Component X. Tab 3 reports

400

thermal failures (

4\%

) of Component X during final assembly testing.

Resolving a discrepancy requires contrasting the scope and metrics of the conflicting reports.

2

Analyze Tab 2 for policy rules that bridge receiving data and assembly data.

Standard receiving requires QC-1 (physical) and QC-2 (thermal). Express Procurement items skip receiving QC-2 and are marked 'Cleared at Entry', while thermal defects are logged later in final assembly testing.

Understanding testing protocol exceptions explains why receiving logs miss specific failure modes.

3

Evaluate the statements to select valid reconciliation mechanisms.

The statement highlighting that receiving-stage records included only QC-1 clearance for Express Procurement items, and the statement highlighting that thermal defects defer to post-assembly logs under Express Procurement policy, both correctly reconcile the conflicting reports.

Both selected statements accurately synthesize the procedural exception in Tab 2 with the observational scope differences between Tab 1 and Tab 3.

Key Concept

Discrepancy Resolution via Scope and Procedural Exceptions Across Multiple Sources

Discrepancy and Conflict Resolution Between Sources

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes

Answer

Step-by-Step Solution

Key Concept

Common Mistakes