A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
This is absolutely false as the CR does not talk about other kind of restaurants at all

B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
This makes sense as copycat suites have been filed against each of the eleven. Even though this does not say the poisoning has happened due to the restaurants, the fact that they have been sued assumes this.

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
cooking method is not mentioned anywhere, so this is out

D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
again, no proof of this in the sentence.

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
even though this is true, we do not know for sure if restaurants have been sued without any food poisoning.

So IMO the answer is

When going for conclusion question, just stay very close to premise. Donot assume ANYTHING. With that thought, I marked the answer in 1min13sec. Hope I am not tricked.

I think the answer is D,
The information never states that the people eating in those restaurants did actually get poisoned.
Only states that a number of copycat suits have been were filed against them.
If the restaurants are hiring lawyers to defend themselves, it means that they are incurring losses due to these lawsuits....
So, they must have lost quite a few of them.
Option d for me

This is a good question. The wording of the question is convoluted enough. Got stuck on two options but with the concepts I learnt, I eliminated one from the two. OA will confirm my understing and choosing correct answer will bolster further my confidence for this type of question.

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
This is nowhere said in the stimulus.


B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
Only suits are filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants. It is not mentioned if anyone contracted the food poisoning.

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
This is irrelevant. Method of cooking is not discussed

D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
Only suits are filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants. No mention of anyone winning any settlements.

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
"forcing these restaurants to hire lawyers and take steps to defend themselves in court." This means some restaurants are spending money on these lawsuits.

E for me.

What is OA?

Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad case of food poisoning from a meal at one Chinese restaurant in Bairenville, and she successfully sued the restaurant for a large sum of money. The story was popular in the town, and the size of the financial settlement made the national news. This year, we have seen a number of "copycat" suits filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, forcing these restaurants to hire lawyers and take steps to defend themselves in court.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

This is an inference question
concln: A number of "copycat" suits filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, forcing these restaurants to face legal proceedings.

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville( This cannot be said from the above info since there is no such data.)

B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.(Can be true.. but we cannot draw this based on above information in the argument)

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
(blames whole chinese food. New info as no such info is mentioned.)

D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.(There is info regarding no of suits filed not won. Out of scope.)

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning. (This seems reasonable since suits filed and their legal proceedings can incur in expenses.

E for me. Because of the words "copycat suits".
It doesn't matter if the people contacted food poisoning or not. They just wanted to file similar suits for a large sum of money.

Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad case of food poisoning from a meal at one Chinese restaurant in Bairenville, and she successfully sued the restaurant for a large sum of money. The story was popular in the town, and the size of the financial settlement made the national news. This year, we have seen a number of "copycat" suits filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, forcing these restaurants to hire lawyers and take steps to defend themselves in court.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
-Outside information , not worrying about other restaurant.
B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
-If this is true , then we cannot say "copycat suits". Hence this is wrong.
C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
-We are not talking about cooking methods
D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
-We donot know about the result of law suits
E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
-Hence E.

E for me.

A-fails the Fact Test( not mentioned in the argument)
B- can be true,but not mentioned in the argument.So this also fails Fact Test
C-out of scope
D-maybe true,but not mentioned in the argument
E- this passes the fact test.As it is mentioned that the Chinese hotels hired lawyers,it can be concluded that some restaurants will be subjected to legal expenses,even though their patrons did not suffer from food poisoning.

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
Out of scope , because the rate of food poisoning is not the concern of the argument

B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
this looks goods but gives no information about hiring of lawyer and defense costs which is important to have in the conclusion

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
Out of scope -cooking method is not the concern

D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
out of scope - it doesn't address whether citizens won settlements from Chinese restaurant

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
correct

Official Explanation:

Last year, one woman contracted food poisoning, sued, and won a large settlement that attracted a great deal of attention. This year, there have been "copycat" suits, that is, suits motivated primarily by a desire to achieve a similarly large settlement. We know that all eleven Chinese restaurants have been sued: we don't know whether all those suits are legitimate --- that is, whether anyone actually suffered from food poisoning.

(E) is the credited answer. Since the suits are "copycat" in nature, this suggests that at least some of the Chinese restaurants have been entirely innocent with respect to giving patrons food poisoning. Nevertheless, these restaurants have been sued, and are therefore unfairly subject to legal expenses.

The other four answers make the fallacious assumption that all the suits this year are justified. This is precisely what (B) states, and if that were true, there would be reason to suspect that (D) is true. Choices (A) and (C) not only make this fallacious assumption but also expand it to an even more general rule about Chinese restaurants. None of these are justified conclusions.
_________________

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.
_________________