Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 19:51

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

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 126
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 85 [3] , given: 0

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 May 2005, 01:59
3
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.

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.

Source: Arco or 1000 Series
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1553
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: CR from 100 CR. [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 May 2009, 00:09
By process of elimination, the answer should be C.

A is wrong as it shows reverse causation. The argument mentions that since people are motivated by...., they demand resignation and not vice versa.

B. not supported by argument.

D. not supported by argument. Argument does mention growth in the past 6 years, but not steady expansion.

E. outside the scope (acquittal).
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2009
Posts: 193
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 1

Re: CR from 100 CR. [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 May 2009, 23:49

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.
Too strong of an inference, he says 'some'.
(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.
Nope. Notice the word 'official duties', he separates his official/criminal activities.
(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.
Haha! This is the biggest trap answer ever. He says he's innocent... doesn't mean he is.
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.
Yes this is clearly stated in the passage.
(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.
Very clearly says he was charged, not acquited.

_________________

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1197 [2] , given: 2

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jul 2009, 08:08
2
KUDOS
Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.
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.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1197 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

26 Jul 2009, 04:15
You are all correct: answer is D.

But, can you explain a bit further?

I was with C: the text says that one is innocent until proven guilty. Since no court of law in any state has found the chairman guilty of any criminal offense, the chairman is therefore innocent so C is the one.

Can anybody shed some light in my argument?

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 291
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 15:05
tough one between C and D, but going with D as it does say the corporation has growth in the past 6 years.

in C it did say that he is innocent, but passage he said he was not found guilty in any court, and he believes that he is innocent until found guilty, but that does not suggest whether he is innocent or guilty. thus if option C says "the chairman believes he is innocent" then C is a viable option. otherwise, i would go with D
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 291
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 15:07
acer2knight wrote:
It was close call for me between A and D.

Can someone explain why A cannot be infered here? "Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation"

too strong...it says " ALL individuals"...but the passage says individuals seeking...(which can refer to some individuals who are seeking, or all) so they are not quite the same...so not A
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 350
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 32

Show Tags

18 Aug 2009, 23:48
This is an 'Inference' question so the answer cannot be C.
Extracted: "Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever"

Only D is inferred (that is in a way paraphrased from the passage).
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 195
Schools: Stanford...Wait, I will come!!!
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 3

Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 00:51
noboru wrote:
You are all correct: answer is D.

But, can you explain a bit further?

I was with C: the text says that one is innocent until proven guilty. Since no court of law in any state has found the chairman guilty of any criminal offense, the chairman is therefore innocent so C is the one.

Can anybody shed some light in my argument?

Chairmain himself says that [A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. ]
No-where Chairman has himself called innocent.Also.. D is the best choice..because it can be inferred properly.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 212
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 6

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Dec 2009, 16:38
1. Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.
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.
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

19 Dec 2009, 11:51
I ruled out D because of the word "steadily".

From the excerpt relevant to this option: "the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show". The only information I can infer is that corporation had growth. In GMAT, afaik, each word in the inference MUST be justified and option D does not justify the use of word "steadily".
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 32
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Schools: going to Melbourne Business School
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

15 Jan 2010, 01:19
I see the same problem between A & D.

argument:

Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation.
Choice A:
The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.

IMO option A is reverse of argument. the word ALL refers to those who have demanded his resignation, and eliminates anyone else, (or thats how I perceived)
I rule out D because it says unbroken growth can not always be the same as steady growth...

I have also heard that 1000 series has some wrong OAs too...
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 307
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 69

Show Tags

10 Feb 2010, 16:02
Some issues with (D):

Quote:
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.

Stimulus says that "...as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show ... "

1) Even though "growth" = = "expansion", how do we now that company expanded steadily?

2) How do we know that expansion occurred in past 6 years? Stimulus only mentions that there was some unbroken 6-year record, not necessarily previous years.

3) If issues (1) and (2) are cleared, wouldn't (D) be the simple restatement of fact and not inference?

4) What's wrong with (C)?
Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Posts: 192
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 6

Show Tags

12 Feb 2010, 21:03
noboru wrote:
OA is D, but can anybody explain a bit?

Thank u

All other statements are given in the passage.

Only for D, you need to look at the words "corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth" and come to the conclusion. Its the only choice where you need to reason. All others are exactly as given in passage.
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 128
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 10

Show Tags

18 Apr 2010, 11:20
noboru wrote:
I´m still not catching whats wrong with C...

if we read the heart of the stem, we find that choice C is the outcome of the motivation of the chairman.
chairman is trying to prove that he is innocent this doses not mean that the argument says chairman is innocent.
hope i make some point
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1197 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

18 Apr 2010, 12:02
sandeep25398 wrote:
noboru wrote:
I´m still not catching whats wrong with C...

if we read the heart of the stem, we find that choice C is the outcome of the motivation of the chairman.
chairman is trying to prove that he is innocent this doses not mean that the argument says chairman is innocent.
hope i make some point

My point is that the argument says that chairman is innocent, since it says that until proven guilty, everybody is innocent: Chairman has not been proven to be guilty, so he is innocent!

Im still with C!

Thanks!
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 128
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 10

Show Tags

18 Apr 2010, 12:19
noboru wrote:

My point is that the argument says that chairman is innocent, since it says that until proven guilty, everybody is innocent: Chairman has not been proven to be guilty, so he is innocent!

Im still with C!

Thanks!

what you have mentioned is the stand of chairman not the argument. e.g. if Mr X is addressing to press conference and Mr X tells to media that he is not involved in scandal since he is not proven to be involved in scandal then this statement does not mean that Mr X is really not involved , it's just Mr X stand. we can not infer from the statement that Mr X is not involved in scandal.
on lighter note, I do not know if mentioned analogy became another argument
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1197 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

18 Apr 2010, 12:34
sandeep25398 wrote:
noboru wrote:

My point is that the argument says that chairman is innocent, since it says that until proven guilty, everybody is innocent: Chairman has not been proven to be guilty, so he is innocent!

Im still with C!

Thanks!

what you have mentioned is the stand of chairman not the argument. e.g. if Mr X is addressing to press conference and Mr X tells to media that he is not involved in scandal since he is not proven to be involved in scandal then this statement does not mean that Mr X is really not involved , it's just Mr X stand. we can not infer from the statement that Mr X is not involved in scandal.
on lighter note, I do not know if mentioned analogy became another argument

I see your point and I would agree if it were an opinion for example, but in this case, the fact that the chairman has not been proven guilty by any court is that: A FACT, so, since if you are not proven guilty you are innocent: chairman is innocent. You know what I mean?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 01:12
I will go with A.

Nowhere in the stimulus it is mentioned STEADILY. Unbroken growth not= steadily. It may be 2%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 7%, 9%.

C can be wrong. He may have done good for the organization, good growth, no charges against him still proven but he may have done something unethical or show bad behaviour towards him collegues/seniors thats why he is asked to resign.

In A, all those who clearifies that only a set of people as per the context, have asked for chairman's resignation.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Forum Moderator
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1405
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 181

Kudos [?]: 881 [0], given: 621

Re: Below is an excerpt from a letter that was .... [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jul 2010, 03:15
D.

Furthermore, as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show = D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.

We do not know whether is he quilty or not or what is the real situation there.
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1457
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 13

Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 11:09
noboru wrote:
I´m still not catching whats wrong with C...

C says the chairman is innocent of any criminal offense. From the passage we know that no court of law has proven him guilty. But there could be a possibility that in some courts of law - the cases may still be on and he may still be found guilty

Also - C is sweeping in nature - he may have committed offenses for which no cases may have been lodged. So he while he is not innocent of criminal offense yet no court of law has proved him guilty.
Re: Chairman...   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2010, 11:09

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8    Next  [ 150 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
10 Since the city council sent a letter to the residents of 10 20 May 2017, 02:38
Shipping Clerk: The five specially ordered shipments sent 0 25 Jul 2014, 07:04
28 Shipping Clerk: The five specially ordered shipments sent 14 01 Mar 2017, 03:00
Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the 0 04 Jan 2012, 22:45
3 Shipping Clerk: The five specially ordered shipments sent 9 18 Jun 2014, 05:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by