Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad

Question

Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad case of food poisoning from a meal at one Chinese restaurant in Bairenville, and she successfully sued the restaurant for a large sum of money. The story was popular in the town, and the size of the financial settlement made the national news. This year, we have seen a number of "copycat" suits filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, forcing these restaurants to hire lawyers and take steps to defend themselves in court.

Which of following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.

kingjamesrules · Answer

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
 This is absolutely false as the CR does not talk about other kind of restaurants at all

B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
 This makes sense as copycat suites have been filed against each of the eleven. Even though this does not say the poisoning has happened due to the restaurants, the fact that they have been sued assumes this.

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
 cooking method is not mentioned anywhere, so this is out
 
D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
 again, no proof of this in the sentence.

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
 even though this is true, we do not know for sure if restaurants have been sued without any food poisoning.

So IMO the answer is  B

icefrog · Answer

I think the answer is D,
The information never states that the people eating in those restaurants did actually get poisoned. 
Only states that a number of copycat suits have been were filed against them.
If the restaurants are hiring lawyers to defend themselves, it means that they are incurring losses due to these lawsuits....
So, they must have lost quite a few of them.
Option d for me

patilvrishali101 · Answer

A. Patrons of Chinese restaurants in Bairenville contract food poisoning at much higher rates than do patrons of any other kind of restaurant in Bairenville
 This is nowhere said in the stimulus.

B. For each of the eleven Chinese restaurants in Bairenville, at least one person has contracted food poisoning from a meal on some occasion.
 Only suits are filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants. It is not mentioned if anyone contracted the food poisoning.

C. The cooking methods used for Chinese food are less likely to kill germs than are the cooking methods used in other cuisines.
 This is irrelevant. Method of cooking is not discussed

D. This year, a number of citizens of Bairenville have won substantial settlements as the result of lawsuits.
 Only suits are filed against each one of the eleven Chinese restaurants. No mention of anyone winning any settlements.

E. This year, some restaurants in Bairenville have been subjected to legal expenses, irrespective of whether any of their patrons have suffered from food poisoning.
 "forcing these restaurants to hire lawyers and take steps to defend themselves in court." This means some restaurants are spending money on these lawsuits.

E for me.

What is OA?

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation: 
Last year, one woman contracted food poisoning, sued, and won a large settlement that attracted a great deal of attention. This year, there have been "copycat" suits, that is, suits motivated primarily by a desire to achieve a similarly large settlement. We know that all eleven Chinese restaurants have been sued: we don't know whether all those suits are legitimate --- that is, whether anyone actually suffered from food poisoning.

(E) is the credited answer. Since the suits are "copycat" in nature, this suggests that at least some of the Chinese restaurants have been entirely innocent with respect to giving patrons food poisoning. Nevertheless, these restaurants have been sued, and are therefore unfairly subject to legal expenses.

The other four answers make the fallacious assumption that all the suits this year are justified. This is precisely what (B) states, and if that were true, there would be reason to suspect that (D) is true. Choices (A) and (C) not only make this fallacious assumption but also expand it to an even more general rule about Chinese restaurants. None of these are justified conclusions.

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.

Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Last year, a woman was able to demonstrate that she contracted a bad

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