Answered my question before I could even ask it.
Process of Elimination will get us to D, but the word “steadily” is bothersome.
xahead wrote:
A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.
Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?
(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.
(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.
(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.
(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.
This is a conclusion/inference question. The correct answer would be something already given in the passage or something you can infer without a doubt.
Let's look at each option:
(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.
The chairman only says, "Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation."
It is possible that A, B and C are three individuals who are seeking to control the corporation and have demanded his resignation. That makes his statement correct. In addition, there could be others who are not seeking to control the corporation but have demanded his resignation. This will make option (A) incorrect. So we cannot say that the chairman's statement implies that EVERYONE who demanded his resignation is motivated by desire to control the corporation. Note that the chairman's statement only gives you partial information - there is at least one person who wishes to control the corp and has demanded his resignation. The chairman doesn't talk about everyone who wants his resignation.
(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.
Not mentioned. His misdeeds and his success as the chairman are two different things.
(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.
We cannot infer that. All we can say is that he hasn't been found guilty yet and he will be considered innocent (as of now at least) in the American tradition. Whether he actually is innocent, we can't say.
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.
The corporation has an unbroken six year record of growth. So we can say that the corporation has been expanding for the past six years. Here, I would doubt the 'steadily' part since we don't know whether the growth has been steady (let's say same rate of growth) but considering that no other option comes close to being an inference, I would have to overlook it.
(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.
We don't know that. All we know is that no court has found him guilty yet. Perhaps, some cases are still pending and the verdict is not out yet. We cannot say that he has been acquitted in every case.
Answer (D)