It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

Question

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.

eyunni · Answer

I found (B) and (C) very close even after using assumption negation. Why is one better than the other?

Amit05 · Answer

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... ???

GMATBLACKBELT · Answer

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

kalpvriksha14 · Answer

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

saviop · Answer

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.

Vineetk · Answer

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.

I was between B & D. Picked D. I understand why B is correct but please explain how to eliminate D

Narenn · Answer

Merging Similar Topics. Refer to the solution above. Note that order of the choices is different in original question

Regards,

Narenn

Zarrolou · Answer

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.

KarthicRajha · Answer

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

swati007 · Answer

@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

UmangMe · Answer

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?

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards