Soumyasrinivas wrote:
Dear Mike,
This is the psg in which the OA is A for inference..However, option C also was pretty close..Could you please explain why C could be eliminated.
Distance learning offers a potentially lucrative option for learning institutions. Money that would otherwise be spent on classroom space, parking facilities, climate control, and other particulars associated with providing a location-specific service can be diverted to marketing and quality control two crucial factors that can drive new business.
Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the statements above?
A. The costs associated with offering distance learning are lower than those of other instruction methods.
B. Online classes are more convenient for both instructors and students than are classes held at specific geographic locations.
C. Distance learning does not required climate control or parking facilities.
D. Most types of instruction can be effectively conducted in an online setting.
E. Computers and internet access are uniformly available to people in the developed world.
Thank you!
Soumya
Dear Soumya,
I'm happy to help.
This is a very important thing to appreciate about inference on the GMAT CR & RC. A good GMAT inference is not something that could be true. It is not something that is likely true or almost certainly true. A good GMAT inference is something not explicitly said that absolutely has to be true, that can't possibly be not true.
Choice
(C) is something which is probably true, but it is possible to imagine scenarios in which it is not true. For example, essentially, my company,
Magoosh, offers "distance learning," and while it is true that we don't have provide "climate controlled" classrooms for our students, who are all remote, it's also true that the office where we
Magoosh employees work
is "climate controlled." That would be an example of a "distance learning" company which
does require climate control. We could also imagine analogous company, with a headquarters out in the suburbs: that facility might have its own parking lot for the employees. If we can imagine any kind of exception, any kind of case in which the statement is not 100% true, then it is not a good GMAT inference.
If the only way the statement could possibly be true is if we blatantly contradict clear statements in the passage, then that is a good GMAT inference.
Does this make sense?
Mike