GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 13:38

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 478
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Jun 2013, 09:50
1
16
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:35) correct 36% (01:49) wrong based on 598 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.

Originally posted by eyunni on 16 Nov 2007, 19:45.
Last edited by Zarrolou on 26 Jun 2013, 09:50, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 478

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 20:14
I found (B) and (C) very close even after using assumption negation. Why is one better than the other?
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 20:37
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.

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... ???
SVP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 1997
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 23:36
1
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
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 40

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2007, 00:52
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
Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 42
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2007, 05:41
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: 133
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
It has been against the law  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 07:37
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.

I was between B & D. Picked D. I understand why B is correct but please explain how to eliminate D
MBA Section Director
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 7111
City: Pune
Re: It has been against the law  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 08:45
Merging Similar Topics. Refer to the solution above. Note that order of the choices is different in original question

Regards,

Narenn
_________________
2020 MBA Applicants: Introduce Yourself Here!

MBA Video Series - Video answers to specific components and questions about MBA applications.

2020 MBA Deadlines, Essay Questions and Analysis of all top MBA programs
VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1019
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: It has been against the law  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 10:00
1
1
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
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 12:33
1
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.

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: 65
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 12:48
@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
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5918
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2019, 22:05
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] 17 Sep 2019, 22:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by