Critical Reasoning

Below is an excerpt from a letter that was sent by the chairman of a corporation to the stockholders.
A number of charges have been raised against me, some serious, some trivial. Individuals seeking to control the corporation for their own purposes have demanded my resignation. Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, as the corporation's unbroken six-year record of growth will show, my conduct of my official duties as chairman has only helped enhance the success of the corporation, and so benefited every stockholder.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the excerpt?

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.
(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation.
(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense.
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.
(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal.

please help with the answer and the explaination

IMO D.

Thats the only option that can be true from the argument . unbroken six-year record of growth

C.

This question has a low quality. I wouldn't bother with it.


For example:

This is an Must Be true question. So this Must Be stated in the question stem (for instance: if above is true), but here the author believes. Thus this question has no gmat quality.

Nice work on this one, AIM GMAT - and your answer is pretty well in line with what BastiG says. Much of what the "author" says is belief, but he bases his beliefs on a few facts, and the fact that:

"as the corporation's unbroken six-year record of growth will show..."

is one of his key premises, so that's the answer choice that "must be true" and can therefore be inferred by the passage. The rest of the answer choices are "not necessarily true" - E to me is the trickiest, but we do not know for certain that he has for certain been acquitted. It could just as easily be that there are ongoing legal proceedings that have yet to conclude - that is consistent with the premises (that he has not been found guilty) but calls into question the proposed conclusion.

As far as practice, this question does have some value...those Inference questions are typically best attacked through process of elimination using the "not necessarily true" standard to eliminate wrong answers.

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Nice work on this one, AIM GMAT - and your answer is pretty well in line with what BastiG says. Much of what the "author" says is belief, but he bases his beliefs on a few facts, and the fact that:

"as the corporation's unbroken six-year record of growth will show..."

is one of his key premises, so that's the answer choice that "must be true" and can therefore be inferred by the passage. The rest of the answer choices are "not necessarily true" - E to me is the trickiest, but we do not know for certain that he has for certain been acquitted. It could just as easily be that there are ongoing legal proceedings that have yet to conclude - that is consistent with the premises (that he has not been found guilty) but calls into question the proposed conclusion.

As far as practice, this question does have some value...those Inference questions are typically best attacked through process of elimination using the "not necessarily true" standard to eliminate wrong answers.

Hi Brian,

Can you please explain why A is not the right option?

Thanks.

Brian@VeritasPrep & AIM GMAT
the OA is D only
thanks for your explaination

here comes another question for you all


Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.

In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don't trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won't buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) I'm buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.

please help with your answers & explanations

Refer the below link :-

https://www.beatthegmat.com/dr-a-dr-b-tr ... 11880.html

hey AIM GMAT
Thanks for the link
Regards

How could D be answer when it is explicitly mentioned in passage?

I mean inference is something which is not stated already but something NOT stated but but could be concluded.

I mean it is premise.

Great discussion, everyone!

@DarkKnight - really good question. Pay close attention to the word "all" in choice A (and in any CR answer choice in which it might appear). We can't prove that "all" who have demanded his resignation have personal gains at stake...he just implies that "some" do...to eliminate A, all we need to do is come up with a hypothetical in which one of those calling for his resignation have a different reason for doing so, and because the facts don't disprove that, A is "not necessarily true". Mainly because of that word "all".

@towerSpider - the name of the game for Inference questions is that the correct answer "MUST BE TRUE". D is a paraphrase of a premise given in the stimulus, so we know that it is definitely true. It may not be the most cleverly-written answer choice, but it's indisputable, and that's our burden of proof for these Inference questions, which more often than not are better solved by eliminating the "not necessarily true" answers and then assessing what's left. The correct answer "must be true" but need not be particularly interesting or compelling...

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Great discussion, everyone!

@DarkKnight - really good question. Pay close attention to the word "all" in choice A (and in any CR answer choice in which it might appear). We can't prove that "all" who have demanded his resignation have personal gains at stake...he just implies that "some" do...to eliminate A, all we need to do is come up with a hypothetical in which one of those calling for his resignation have a different reason for doing so, and because the facts don't disprove that, A is "not necessarily true". Mainly because of that word "all".

@towerSpider - the name of the game for Inference questions is that the correct answer "MUST BE TRUE". D is a paraphrase of a premise given in the stimulus, so we know that it is definitely true. It may not be the most cleverly-written answer choice, but it's indisputable, and that's our burden of proof for these Inference questions, which more often than not are better solved by eliminating the "not necessarily true" answers and then assessing what's left. The correct answer "must be true" but need not be particularly interesting or compelling...

Thanks brian. I have two tiny questions. I will thankful if you answer.

1.If premise and inference both must be true, then whats the difference?

2. My second question is particular to this stimulus. The stimulus (author) is only refering to his six years recorded statistical performance (and IMPLYING that the corporation prosperped under his authority) or is he explicitly stating that the corporation excelled under his authority. This question has to do with my inability to understand english, not critical reasoning.

Hey TowerSpider:

Great questions - here are my takes:

1) Honestly, I'd look at two differences:

-LOGICALLY: a conclusion needs to be based on premises. So in a sentence like "It is raining, so the game will be canceled", "it is raining" is the premise - it's just a fact. And "the game will be canceled" is the conclusion - it is dependent on the premise (or fact) that "it is raining".

In order to be correct as the answer to an Inference question the conclusion must be true. The premise, however, doesn't have a chance to be false - it's just given as a fact on which a conclusion could be drawn. So that's the main difference logically - the conclusion is dependent on the facts, and it may or may not be true depending on how well the facts support it.

-PRACTICALLY for the GMAT: if you're asked to draw an inference, the only answer choices that they'll give you are going to be potential conclusions/inferences. So for your purposes on this question, the distinction between premise and conclusion doesn't really matter. There will be four answer choices that are not necessarily true, and one that is definitely true, and your job is to select the one that is definitely true. In fact, I wouldn't even say that the correct answer to an Inference question needs to be a conclusion - even if it doesn't logically depend on any other statements, if you can't dispute it it really can't be a "wrong" answer. Fortunately the GMAT is well-written enough so that it will avoid a situation like that...


2) I'd say that the author is using the six-year performance as the basis, or a premise for, the rest of his argument. On the GMAT there are only premises and conclusions, so because that statement is given as a fact, we can take it to be true. To your question, it's more an implication than a direct statement (he says "as the corporation's unbroken six-year record of growth will show...", so it's more an implied fact), but because it's given as fact it makes for a fair inference to be drawn.



I hope that helps - thanks for a great discussion on this one!