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

Question

Competition Mode Question

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.
B. The applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified.
C. Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office.
D. The application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected.
E. Most of those who applied for summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions.

madgmat2019 · Accepted Answer

A. The number of applicants for summer jobs in the government office exceeded the number of summer jobs available...........reject many highly qualified applicants..............so they received more than required.....CORRECT
B. The applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified..........Not really....it just mentioned a scenario, that doesnt mean he is one of them....WRONG
C. Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office.......Limited- cannot be taken as very little......WRONG
D. The application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected......OUT OF SCOPE
E. Most of those who applied for summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions.......NO .....WRONG

OA:A

exc4libur · Answer

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.

Archit3110 · Answer

IMO A is correct
The number of applicants for summer jobs in the government office exceeded the number of summer jobs available.

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.
B. The applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified.
C. Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office.
D. The application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected.
E. Most of those who applied for summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions.

CareerGeek · Answer

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

IMO Option A

eakabuah · Answer

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.

chaitralirr · Answer

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

reynaldreni · Answer

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

rishabh1331 · Answer

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)

Sapnilbhatnagar · Answer

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..

aryanm · Answer

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 =   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

Sapnilbhatnagar · Answer

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.

Ananthu99 · Answer

It doesn't make sense to say that opt A is right because " The number of applicants for summer jobs in the government office exceeded the number of summer jobs available." - This is just 'a' inference. It's mentioned in the given letter that the sole reason for the rejection is the limited nature of the budget and assuming that they receive more or less number of applicants is beyond the scope of the question. Again, they can have applicants coming in for jobs that they cannot fill because their ability to finance that is limited due to the mentioned budgetary limitations.

So for me 'C' seems to be the only correct option because A is just assuming that they did not have more job openings, which is, again, outside the scope of the passage.

pitterpatter · Answer

Option A and D were the close ones , reason for mot elimination D was that , if they are rejecting even the highly qualified people , that means the selections is done after alot of consideration , hence that is something i felt is inferred.

bb · Answer

Hi. Your reasoning about consideration is going too far outside of the scope on the GMAT.

There’s nothing in the original passage that talks about consideration so we cannot say if they even did any consideration at all.

GMAT inference is very immediate - you cannot have two steps, it can only be one step inference. In D) case, you are inferring that there was consideration first, and then based on that inference you are making a second inference. Double inference is a no go.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards