Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Aug 2014, 14:23

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2007, 18:45
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (02:06) correct 37% (01:16) wrong based on 110 sessions
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.

Please explain your answers.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Zarrolou on 26 Jun 2013, 08:50, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2007, 18:53
i think its C
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 529
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post 16 Nov 2007, 19:37
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.

Please explain your answers.


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
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2593
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post 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.

Please explain your answers.


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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 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
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 17 Nov 2007, 19:17
OA is C.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post 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.

Please explain your answers.


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.
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 167
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 31

It has been against the law [#permalink] New post 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
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 1144
Location: India
City: Pune
GPA: 3.4
WE: Business Development (Manufacturing)
Followers: 133

Kudos [?]: 842 [0], given: 821

Re: It has been against the law [#permalink] New post 26 Jun 2013, 07:45
Expert's post
Merging Similar Topics. Refer to the solution above. Note that order of the choices is different in original question

Regards,

Narenn
_________________

Be the coolest guy in the MBA Forum - Be a threadmaster!

Have a blog? Feature it on GMAT Club!

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Next Generation GMATClub CATS with Brilliant Analytics.

Need GMAT Book Recommendations? Best GMAT Books


1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 112

Kudos [?]: 1126 [1] , given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: It has been against the law [#permalink] New post 26 Jun 2013, 09:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
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]

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
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] New post 26 Jun 2013, 11:33
1
This post received
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.

Please explain your answers.


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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 15

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

Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal   [#permalink] 26 Jun 2013, 11:48
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 SC - federal law maulikmajithia 7 15 Jun 2008, 18:03
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer goalsnr 7 28 May 2008, 18:52
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal eyunni 0 18 Nov 2007, 04:41
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer humtum0 0 26 Jul 2007, 15:11
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer Folaa3 8 01 Jun 2005, 16:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.