It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 14:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [1] , given: 0

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 18:45
1
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (02:12) correct 35% (01:23) wrong based on 369 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.

(B) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

(C) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.

(D) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.

(E) Many diabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Zarrolou on 26 Jun 2013, 08:50, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 18:53
i think its C
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 19:14
I found (B) and (C) very close even after using assumption negation. Why is one better than the other?
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 525
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 90 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 19:37
1
KUDOS
eyunni wrote:
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.

Out of scope..

(B) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

This can't assumption. This can be an inference or conclusion.

(C) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.

This is close. I am confused because of 'some' but still would go for C

(D) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.

Out of scope.

(E) Many diabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

This can be assumed but it is not in this context.

I read somewhere that we should abstain from extreme choices. Just wanted to know about 'some', Is there any specific rule for some ..?? As in the above sentence, even if we negate the choice C, still the argument does not fall apart convincingly.. Any suggestions... ???
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 422 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 22:36
eyunni wrote:
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.

(B) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

(C) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.

(D) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.

(E) Many diabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

A: Irrelevant
B: This is somewhat attempting, but the argument already suggests the legislation will stop legislation.
D: Irrelevant
E: This is a very weak choice.

C: best assumption of all
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 23:52
C...it makes it clear that some jobs exists for the disabled peopele for which they are qualified.but "some " sure is ambiguous...as how only jobs in "some " companies decrease unemployment substantially
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2007, 19:17
OA is C.
Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2007, 04:41
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
eyunni wrote:
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.

(B) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

(C) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.

(D) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.

(E) Many diabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

A: Irrelevant
B: This is somewhat attempting, but the argument already suggests the legislation will stop legislation.
D: Irrelevant
E: This is a very weak choice.

C: best assumption of all

Agree with C, here are my thoughts (I want to focus on ruling out incorrect answer choices rather than explain the correct one)

A. irrelevant /out-of-scope as premise does not discuss this.
B. This one is tricky but incorrect as it does not help explain the conclusion
C. Correct
D. irrelevant and also does not help explain the conclusion.
E. Term "voluntarily" in this ans choice contradicts with Term "involuntarily" in the conclusion. So this choice actually weakens the argument.
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 168
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 31

It has been against the law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 06:37
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to expand these existing provisions to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.
(B) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.
(C) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.
(D) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.
(E) Many disabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
I was between B & D. Picked D. I understand why B is correct but please explain how to eliminate D
MBA Section Director
Status: On vacation...
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 3983
Location: India
City: Pune
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.4
WE: Business Development (Manufacturing)
Followers: 399

Kudos [?]: 2889 [0], given: 2164

Re: It has been against the law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 07:45
Merging Similar Topics. Refer to the solution above. Note that order of the choices is different in original question

Regards,

Narenn
_________________
VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1123
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 181

Kudos [?]: 1967 [1] , given: 219

Re: It has been against the law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 09:00
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Vineetk wrote:
I was between B & D. Picked D. I understand why B is correct but please explain how to eliminate D

In assumption problems an useful technique is the "negation": you negate an option and if the argument falls apart, it's the correct answer.

Example:
(B) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.
=> in the past there has been NO discrimination
The argument is destroyed, as even before the new law there was not discrimination=>the legislation won't change anything.

(D) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.
=> the legislation would NOT stop the discrimination.
The argument is still valid, because you can still discriminate but hire a person and in this case the argument "works".

Do not get confused by similar words/concepts! You can discriminate a person but still hire him, a thing does not exclude the other.
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 0

Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 11:33
1
KUDOS
eyunni wrote:
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

(A) Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.

(B) The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

(C) Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.

(D) The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.

(E) Many diabled people voluntarily choose to remain unemployed.

Best Answer choice - C

Conclusion: the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially
Premise: Not only Govt. sectors but also Private sectors did not employ the disabled.
Hint: After passing legislation on Private sector, unemployed will drop substantially - means that private sectors are majorly rejecting the disabled
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 15

Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 11:48
@Vineetk,

Option D- By negating ->The approved legislation would not stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.
even if discrimination is not stopped(completely), we can still have a drop in the number of disabled people.
The conclusion still holds true. Hence, D is not a correct ans.

Please let me know if is not clear to you
_________________

Kudos always encourages me

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10543
Followers: 920

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2015, 03:40
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10543
Followers: 920

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2016, 21:54
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.
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal   [#permalink] 14 Jul 2016, 21:54
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 Federal law prohibits businesses from reimbursing any 18 29 Jun 2010, 09:32
4 Hutonian Government Official: Federal law requires truck 22 01 Oct 2008, 00:15
1 Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer 8 28 May 2008, 18:52
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal 0 18 Nov 2007, 04:41
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer 0 26 Jul 2007, 15:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.