The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) was designed to ensure that

Hello Experts,

Can you please explain why option B is better than option C?
As per my thinking, both "fewer" in option B and "some" in option C don't comply with the conclusion "markedly increase of unemployement".

Though i marked option c..

Thanks
Lakshay

Hello, Lakshay. I will confess that this one took me 2:24 to solve (correctly). I narrowed the options down to (B) or (C) before I chose the former. In the interest of helping the community, I would like to elucidate just what led me to my own conclusion. Notice, first, that this is a discrepancy or paradox question. We need to understand exactly what is presented at loggerheads to put a finger on a potential "fix."


Sentence 1 outlines two provisions of the ADA: to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently-abled workers in the workplace.

Sentence 2 presents the discrepancy, since after the act was introduced, there has been a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled.

There is a reason why I suggest to students that they read the exact phrasing of the passage to assess the answer choices, as we will see in a moment. It is often not good enough to remember the gist of the passage, since the answers to CR questions are nuanced. With that said, let us get to the matter at hand.

Analysis: I was on the fence about this one. If such people chose not to work, then they would still be considered unemployed, and that fact would have nothing to do with discrimination or unfair termination. What kept me from choosing this answer was a number of, which is unqualified. Is that two people? Does the phrase encompass sixty percent of differently-abled people? We just cannot get to the bottom of it. This is a could-be-true answer, not a must-be-true. If you prefer to be cautious, as I was, you could hold on to this option while you searched for other, more obvious incorrect responses. Yellow light.

Analysis: This puts the issue front and center: workplace discrimination and, to borrow from the passage, an increase in unemployment among the differently-abled. What I like about this answer more than (A) is that there is a clearer timeline here, indicated by the first part of the answer choice. We understand that the action taken by several companies is a reaction to the ADA having been passed, so after the act was introduced from the passage fits. The only lingering question I have surrounds fewer of them. Would that necessarily translate to a marked increase in unemployment? For now, I would flip the switch on (A) to red, mark this one as a better option, and move on. Yellow light.

Analysis: This is a tempting option, but a close examination gets rid of it outright. Notice that the passage does not state that companies cannot terminate differently-abled individuals. The ADA protects such persons from unfair termination instead, so this answer, with while they had a chance, sounds dubious. That is, companies can still, post-ADA, fire differently-abled individuals with cause, just not unfairly. This option overstates the case in absolute terms. Red light.

Analysis: This has no impact on the pre- or post-ADA work environment. As far as we know, there never existed any legislation to guarantee jobs for the differently-abled, so if there still exists no such legislation, then nothing has changed legally since the enactment of the ADA along these lines that would explain the discrepancy. Why was there a marked increase in unemployment among the group in question, taking this new information into consideration? It is a blind alley, nothing more. Red light.

Analysis: The trouble here is with has remained consistently high. We need to find a plausible way to reconcile the difference in what we would expect the post-ADA work environment to resemble and the way it actually looks according to the passage, with more differently-abled individuals finding themselves unemployed. If unemployment among the target group was high before and has remained consistently so, then nothing has really changed, and again, we are looking to explain why the change in legislation that was designed to produce a certain outcome produced the opposite instead, a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled. This information simply does not deliver to that end. Red light.

Of the five answer choices, then, the best of the lot is (B). It presents a clear cause-and-effect timeline surrounding the ADA and the target group in question, and it does resolve the apparent discrepancy.

I would be happy to discuss the question further if anyone feels differently. For now, I want to wish everyone good luck with their studies.

- Andrew

ADA was meant to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently abled workers.
What actually happened was increase in unemployment among them

Why did this happen?

Because of the new law, recruiters were afraid of statutory action against them, if they violated the provisions of the Act. Therefore, to save themselves from the future embarrassment, they chose not to recruit them.
Option B is correct.