SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans wi

Week 2 winners posted

Some reflections from week 2:

• Timer results were overwhelmingly fewer than last week (although the number of replies went up almost for every day! Are we using the timer while answering the questions?
• No timer data from Day 10 questions align with the correct answer
• The Level of Difficulty has been high so far. Should we dial down a little bit next week?

VeritasPrep Blog explaining this question :

https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2014/09 ... -the-gmat/

Don't like this question. Well ok C is a correct choice. So does C mean that SwiftCo must remodel its office only because some rooms are out of reach by some people? Well why SwiftCo can't remodel for any other reason? For example as in D. If costs to remodel are less that potential suit then it makes sense to comply with ADA. Any ideas?

I'm a little peeved because you're selecting C as the right answer for the wrong reason, although your other rationales are correct. You cannot make the claim that you did ("This option is definitely true since if they had to remodel their door / knobs - obviously these doors were out of reach!") for choice C.

In fact, you have no idea if these were out of reach for ANYONE at all. Choice C is purely correct because of its ambiguous wording aka "may be" because that can also suggest that nobody was affected by the changes.

I would expect more from a verbal tutor with such a high verbal score.

Why the answer can't be A too? Thank you

hi apple08, i'd be happy to help. Admittedly, I don't think this question was written well at all in the slightest, but here is what I made out of it:

As for why A can be ruled out:
It is noted that the contractors made these changes to comply with ADA guidelines, but we cannot conclude that the company did EVERYTHING required for them to meet compliance with ADA guidelines. This a very subtle distinction. Perhaps, even though everything that they did were in an effort to comply ti ADA guidelines, they still only ended up meeting 75% of the total compliance requirements.

Basically, just because the company made some changes to comply with their standards does not mean they DID EVERYTHING NECESSARY TO MEET COMPLIANCE.

Hope this helps!

A tricky one, though if you reflect it carefully, it's quite straight-forward.

(A) SwiftCo is now in compliance with ADA requirements.
(B) SwiftCo has at least one employee or customer who uses a wheelchair.
(C) Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees.
(D) The costs of the renovation were less than what SwiftCo would have been liable for had it been sued for ADA violations.
(E) Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.

First, (A), (B) and (D) are out of scope. There is no mention whether SwiftCo is now in compliance, whether they have employees/customers in wheelchairs or should just comply with ADA or the costs were less.

Then, between (C) and (E) it get's a bit more complicated. IMO, the language makes the difference. (C) offers a much more diplomatic and vague way of phrasing that some door knobs may have been out of reach (pay attention to "some" and "may"). On the contrary, (E) is very definitive by using "are", while both door knobs and computer equipment are mentioned to have been part of the renovation.

That's why I'd always prefer (C).

Can some explain why the answer can't be E ?

Swiftco may not comply with all ADA requirements; it may still need to comply with other requirements.

You can infer C, however, because if Swiftco did these works in order to comply with the requirements, then the works were necessary - some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees.

The stimulus states: "SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)"
So the works have that purpose.

(E) Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.

A business may not have any computer equipment, so it would not be in violation of the ADA.

Why C?

Isn't C just as ambiguous as B or for that matter of fact the other options?
Maybe, none of the employees of SwiftCo were handicapped and the ADA might have imposed these rules keeping in view the clientele of many businesses.

Posted from my mobile device

Dear VeritasKarishma AnthonyRitz IanStewart AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep,

Q1. In light of the correct choice C., do we need to ASSUME from the stimulus that:
SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that certain businesses make their properties accessible to those with disabilities.

"those with disabilities" necessarily means "employees"?
Can "those with disabilities" be customers / suppliers / shareholders / big 4 audit accountants / employee's family members / or any other visitors of SwiftCo?

Q2. If choice C. is right, then why isn't choice B. ALSO right?
We know that the ramps are built, then using similar logic with choice C., choice B. has to also be right!

Q3. In choice E., we know that "adaptive computer equipment" is one of the ADA's REQUIREMENTS. Then not fulfilling one of the requirements is deemed in violation of the ADA.
Why is my thinking wrong here?

Thank you!

Not a quality question. Option C assumes that SwiftCo already has employees with disability. SwiftCo just could have done it remain ADA compliant, or might have done it for customers/contractors. Option C is not 'absolutely true' and hence can't be the answer.

Note that choice (C) uses the word "may". That leaves open the possibility that the doors and cabinets may not have been out of reach of any employee. An option with 'may' automatically holds.

Yes, the official answer here does not make sense. We are told that the company renovated "to comply with the ADA". The stem gives us no reason to think that the renovations responded to any employee requirements. We don't even know from the stem that SwiftCo has any employees. That rules out answers B and C.

There's an explanation linked above to an 'official' solution, but that solution is plainly wrong. It justifies answer C because answer C uses the word "may": "some doors may have been out of reach of some employees". That sentence says nothing, because it only says something might or might not be true. So that sentence cannot be false. But answer C is "true" completely independent of the information in the stem. It is plainly not an inference, by the definition of the word "inference". Nor is it "based on the statements above"; it is true independent of the "statements above". So it cannot be the answer to the question, as the question is phrased. If all we were trying to do here is find an answer that must be true, then yes, C is correct, but so would be answer choices that said "before the renovations, the walls at SwiftCo might have been blue" or "some of the employees of SwiftCo might have fifteen ears". It should be clear that neither of those would be good answers here, because neither is an inference of any kind, and nor is answer C.

There isn't much reason to debate the 'correct' answer to a flawed question, but I do think one answer is justifiable here. We do know that all of SwiftCo's renovations were in response to ADA requirements, so we can correctly infer that some businesses are required under the ADA to install adaptive computer equipment. Unfortunately that's not quite what E says, but if it did, E would be correct.

That only leaves answer A as a candidate (since D is not right -- we know nothing about costs). And you can justify A here, depending how you interpret the meaning of "to" in the first sentence. When "to" is used as an infinitive marker, it can have several meanings. Sometimes it expresses only an intention: "To attract new customers, the company launched an advertising campaign". In that sentence, there is no assurance that the campaign was successful; the word "to" only expresses that the company was making an effort towards a goal. But "to" can also indicate a consequence: in the sentences "To cover the cost of the parking ticket, I paid $50", or "To avoid traffic, I drove along side roads", then the parking ticket was paid and the traffic was avoided. The word "to" can express a result, as any dictionary will confirm. So there are two ways to interpret the first sentence of the stem here. We can think the renovations were merely part of an effort to comply with the ADA, an effort that may not have succeeded, or we can read the sentence to mean that the renovations were sufficient to comply with the ADA. Under that second interpretation, answer A is a correct inference. But the language is being used too imprecisely here to know if that interpretation is correct or not.

I received a PM requesting that I evaluate the OA.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the passage will be contradicted.
C, negated:
Prior to the renovation, no doors or cabinets were out of reach for any employees.
This negation does NOT contradict the passage.
While the passage states that the company lowered doorknobs and handles, it does not indicate whether these doorknobs and handles were beyond the reach of EMPLOYEES.
Since the negation of C does not contradict the passage, eliminate C.

None of the answer choices is viable.
I recommend that you disregard this CR.