Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations

Question

Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?

(A) Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.

(B) Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.

(C) Many businesses fail to make a profit because they do not accommodate wheelchair users.

(D) Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.

(E) Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.

guddo · Answer

Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations for people using wheelchairs are unnecessary in certain business areas because those areas are not frequented by wheelchair users. What happens, however, is that once ramps and other accommodations are installed in these business areas, people who use wheelchairs come there to shop and work.
 
 Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?

The editorialist says some areas are not visited by wheelchair users before accommodations are installed, but wheelchair users do come once accommodations are installed.  This supports the idea that lack of accommodations may be the reason wheelchair users do not frequent those areas .

(A) Owners of business areas not frequented by wheelchair users generally are reluctant to make modifications.

This is not supported. The passage discusses an argument against accommodations, but it does not say what owners generally believe or do.

(B) Businesses that install proper accommodations for wheelchair users have greater profits than those that do not.

This is not supported. The passage says wheelchair users may come to shop and work, but it says nothing about profits.

(C) Many businesses fail to make a profit because they do not accommodate wheelchair users.

This is far too strong. The passage gives no information about business failure or profit.

(D) Most businesses are not modified to accommodate wheelchair users.

This is not supported. The passage discusses certain business areas, not most businesses.

(E) Some business areas are not frequented by wheelchair users because the areas lack proper accommodations.

This is correct. If wheelchair users come after ramps and accommodations are installed, then in at least some cases, their earlier absence was likely due to the lack of  proper access .

Answer: (E)

rashminuligonda · Answer

i have a doubt why b is eliminated. bcs when they come to shop, usual customers are however there, when adittionally wheel chair users come, in turn more shopping, shoulnt the profit increase?

egmat · Answer

Hi rashminuligonda,

Your real-world instinct makes sense: more shoppers usually does mean more sales. But that exact instinct is the thing to watch on a  "most strongly supported"  question.

On these, the right answer has to follow from  what the stimulus actually says  - not from what we know about how businesses work. So let's check what the editorialist gives us:

- Some areas aren't frequented by wheelchair users.
- After ramps are installed, wheelchair users  come to shop and work .

That's the whole evidence base. Notice the word  profit  never appears - not for one business, and definitely not as a  comparison  between businesses that install accommodations and those that don't.

Why B fails specifically:  Choice B claims accommodating businesses have  greater profits than those that do not . To support that, you'd need ( 1 ) that the new customers actually increase profit (the cost of ramps could eat the gains - we're not told), and ( 2 ) a side-by-side comparison with non-accommodating businesses (never mentioned). You filled both gaps with outside reasoning. Strip that reasoning out, and the stimulus simply doesn't reach a profit conclusion.

Compare that to  E : "some areas aren't frequented  because  they lack accommodations." That comes straight from the two facts above - users were absent, then showed up once access existed. No outside knowledge needed.

A quick way to test yourself:  before locking an answer, ask,  "Could I point to the exact words that force this?" 
- For  E , yes - the before/after fact does it.
- For  B , you can only get there by adding "more customers means more profit," which is your knowledge, not the editorialist's claim.

That single habit - accept only what the text states - is what separates B from E here.

Answer: E

KarishmaB · Answer

Think about this - what if the cost of maintaining the installed accommodations is high enough such that the profit does not increase? Since to say that profit will increase, we need to assume that cost will be lower than additional revenue, we cannot infer option (B).

Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations

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

Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other accommodations

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