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.
_________________
http://www.ianstewartgmat.com