NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 21:25 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 21:25
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
eyunni
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 254
Own Kudos [?]: 3066 [30]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 26 Jun 2013, 09:50
1
Kudos
29
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:32) correct 34% (01:48) wrong based on 1114 sessions
Hide Show 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.

Please explain your answers.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

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.
Added OA.
User avatar
eyunni
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 254
Own Kudos [?]: 3066 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink] New post   16 Nov 2007, 20:14
1
Kudos
I found (B) and (C) very close even after using assumption negation. Why is one better than the other?
User avatar
Amit05
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 284
Own Kudos [?]: 492 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post   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.

Please explain your answers.


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... ???
User avatar
GMATBLACKBELT
VP
VP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 1150
Own Kudos [?]: 1737 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post   16 Nov 2007, 23:36
1
Kudos
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.

Please explain your answers.


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
avatar
kalpvriksha14
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink] New post   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
User avatar
saviop
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 88 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: CR: Discrimination against job applicants [#permalink] New post   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.

Please explain your answers.


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.
User avatar
Vineetk
AGSM Thread Master
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 713 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: Tuck '16 NUS Ivey Goizueta '14 Kelley '14 UBC AGSM
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
It has been against the law [#permalink] New post   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.

Show Spoiler
I was between B & D. Picked D. I understand why B is correct but please explain how to eliminate D
User avatar
L
Narenn
MBA Section Director
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 8701
Own Kudos [?]: 10011 [0]
Given Kudos: 4542
Test: Test
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: It has been against the law [#permalink] New post   26 Jun 2013, 08:45
Expert Reply
Merging Similar Topics. Refer to the solution above. Note that order of the choices is different in original question

Regards,

Narenn
User avatar
Zarrolou
Director
Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Status:Far, far away!
Posts: 859
Own Kudos [?]: 4891 [4]
Given Kudos: 219
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: It has been against the law [#permalink] New post   26 Jun 2013, 10:00
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
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.
avatar
KarthicRajha
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post   26 Jun 2013, 12:33
1
Kudos
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.

Please explain your answers.


Best Answer choice - C

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
User avatar
swati007
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 53
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post   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
User avatar
B
UmangMe
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2019
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 16 [0]
Given Kudos: 39
Send PM
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post   04 Mar 2020, 05:30
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.

Please explain your answers.


in option B here talk about public as well as private
in my opinion option B and C are somewhat same as in option C "Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants" means after this " approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled" or vice versa.

anyone pls explain?
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17213
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink] New post   21 Aug 2023, 01:41
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.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal [#permalink]
21 Aug 2023, 01:41
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions