Dear Applicant: Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we are

Out of all options only A can be directly inferred, all other options are hypothetical

IMO Option A

ARGUMENT
The office rejected an applicant, because funding is limited and the office cannot offer jobs to everyone;
As a result, the office is forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.

B. it is not explicitly implied that the applicant in question was considered hq;
C. we only know that funding is limited, we cannot tell if it is little;
D. we don't know if the applicant was considered carefully, maybe after the jobs were filled the remaining applicants were automatically rejected;
E. we cannot infer this from the information we have;

Ans (A) if the number applicants didn't exceed availability, then he would have been offered the position.

The right answer is option A.

P1: Unfortunately, we are unable to offer you a position in our local government office for the summer.
P2: As you know, funding for summer jobs is limited, and it is impossible for us to offer jobs to all those who want them.
P3: Consequently, we are forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the above letter to the Applicant is that the number of applicants who have applied for a summer job in the local government office exceeds the number of available summer jobs. This is exactly what is stated in option A.

Option B states that the Applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified. This is not necessarily true based on the information provided above. It could be that the Applicant is among the many that are considered as highly qualified or the applicant could as well not be considered as highly qualified. what is, however, true from what is stated in the letter is that the Applicant is rejected because the number of jobs available is less than the number of applications received. It could be that the job offer is based on first come first served basis or it might be based on how highly qualified an applicant is, but such details have not been provided in the letter.

Option C states that very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office. While this is true, this is not the main conclusion that can be drawn from the argument. Little funding would have had no bearing on the letter if the number of applicants for a summer job is less than the available jobs in the government office. This can therefore not be the main inference or conclusion from the information provided above.

Option D states that the application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected. This may not be necessarily true based on the argument. No information is provided about whether the application of the applicant has been considered carefully. Whether his application was considered carefully or not, there was no vacancy for him for a summer position at the government office. Hence D cannot be be an inference from the information provided above.

Option E states that most of those who applied for the summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions. The information above states that many which is less than most. Option E cannot be true based on the information provided.

The stimulus states that for summer jobs the funding is limited and it is impossible to offer jobs to all applicants who apply and highly qualified applicants are also rejected

If we look at the options only A can be inferred. There are more applicants than jobs.

IMO A

Posted from my mobile device

C. Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office.

Problem with C is "funding is limited" is not exactly the same as "very little funding available." Limited just means that the funds are not infinite! There could be a rather large amount of funding that is capped at a finite amount.



Key points to note:
(1) Applicant has been declined position.
(2) Funding for summer jobs is limited.
(3) Impossible to offer jobs to all those who want them (apply for the same).
(4) (Govt office) forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.

Now, consider options:
(A) combining 2 & 3 above, it could be reasoned that the number of applicants might be more than number of jobs/ position available (hence the application was rejected). Possibly true.
(B) Nowhere is it mentioned that 4 relates to the applicant in particular. It could be a general info provided in the letter as well.
(C) 2 says that funding is limited. It cannot be considered that their's little funding available. Limited funding suggests that its a relative term and should not be confused with the actual amount of funding available. So, to me it seems that this cannot be concluded for sure.
(D) Nowhere is this mentioned.
(E) This is again something which has a relative term (most of those). 4 above suggests that many applicants are highly qualified but that should not be confused for 'most of them'.

Hence, to me it seemed that (A) is the best possible conclusion that can be drawn out of the given lot.


Source: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/tricky-cr-t7829.html

Dear Applicant: Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer you a position in our local government office for the summer. As you know, funding for summer jobs is limited, and it is impossible for us to offer jobs to all those who want them. Consequently, we are forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.

Which of the following can be inferred from the letter?

A. The number of applicants for summer jobs in the government office exceeded the number of summer jobs available. (Can be inferred from the passage as the positions are limited and they have to reject many applicants)
B. The applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified.( Cannot be inferred as it's said many applicants were considered highly qualified)
C. Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office. (limited is not little)
D. The application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected.(cannot be determined)
E. Most of those who applied for summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions.(cannot be determined)

Ok Guys, I have a disagreement with option A being correct. Please prove me wrong!

The reason : Funding is limited for Summer jobs. This does not mean that the # of Jobs available is less, It is highly possible that the number of available jobs are 1000 but funding is only available for 100 jobs. So it cannot be concluded that Lack of funding = Lack of Jobs.
Consider for example: I cannot eat more food because I am full. Does this mean I cannot afford more food? I certainly can afford more food but I cannot eat more of it!
Hence, Confusing Funding with # of jobs availability is not right!

Poorly framed answer choice IMO. Please prove me wrong, I'll be much happier!

GMATNinja Souvik mikemcgarry Kindly shed some light..

I would not think of it from the perspective of funding.

The number of available jobs would be a function of the amount of funding available. I would assume that one won’t set apart funding for 50 jobs, but put a 100 positions on the offer.

Meaning, Number of Jobs = [directly proportional to] Funding.

Secondly, by way of elimination, you can see that, in the scenario, that options, B, C, D and E are not true, that wouldn’t carry any effect on the truthfulness of the situation presented.

However, out of the options, A is the only one that is holding the presented situation. If A is untrue, it means that they just don’t want to give jobs to people, inspite of having open positions. Given an ideal scenario which we would assume here, this seems far fetched.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Aryan,

Thank you for your response.
However, CR doesn't involve your words or mine, it solely relies on the Argument.
What we think or Assume may be sufficient but not necessary, what you are mentioning as an assumption may be *sufficient* but not necessary.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.