BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR 1

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

CR 1

by aditya8062 » Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:36 pm
SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that certain businesses make their properties accessible to those with disabilities. Contractors built ramps where stairs had been, increased the number of handicapped parking spaces in the parking lot, lowered door knobs and cabinet handles, and installed adaptive computer equipment.

Which of the following is the most likely inference based on the statements above?

(A) SwiftCo is now in compliance with ADA requirements.

(B) SwiftCo has at least one employee or customer who uses a wheelchair.

(C) Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees.

(D) The costs of the renovation were less than what SwiftCo would have been liable for had it been sued for ADA violations.

(E) Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.

my doubt: i fail to understand as why E cannot be the answer here .honestly to me C is not giving any concrete information.

C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees-----> is this statement about "swift CO"? how can we know that? there is no mention of "swift Co" in option C!! option C can very well be a plain statement about any company in general, a situation that might not be true even. E, on the other hand, seems very reasonable
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:39 am
aditya8062 wrote:SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that certain businesses make their properties accessible to those with disabilities. Contractors built ramps where stairs had been, increased the number of handicapped parking spaces in the parking lot, lowered door knobs and cabinet handles, and installed adaptive computer equipment.

Which of the following is the most likely inference based on the statements above?

(A) SwiftCo is now in compliance with ADA requirements.

(B) SwiftCo has at least one employee or customer who uses a wheelchair.

(C) Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees.

(D) The costs of the renovation were less than what SwiftCo would have been liable for had it been sued for ADA violations.

(E) Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.

my doubt: i fail to understand as why E cannot be the answer here .honestly to me C is not giving any concrete information.

C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees-----> is this statement about "swift CO"? how can we know that? there is no mention of "swift Co" in option C!! option C can very well be a plain statement about any company in general, a situation that might not be true even. E, on the other hand, seems very reasonable
Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the passage will be contradicted.
C, negated:
Prior to the renovation, no doors or cabinets were out of reach for any employees.
This negation does NOT contradict the passage.
While the passage states that the company lowered doorknobs and handles, it does not indicate whether these doorknobs or handles were beyond the reach of EMPLOYEES.
Since the negation of C does not contradict the passage, eliminate C.

E: Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.
Too broad.
According to this answer choice, ANY business without computer adaptive equipment -- even a lemonade stand run by a small child -- is in violation of the ADA.
The passage does not make this claim.
Eliminate E.

None of the answer choices is viable.
I recommend that you disregard this CR.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:28 am
Thanks Guru for your reply
i really like the way you have approached E. but please clarify some more aspects of C

the argument is talking about the compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
the argument has laid down some points that are to be followed to make a company comply with ADA act .these points are in totality.some might fall in the purview of the company and some may not.for instance if a company is made to comply with ISO standards then it does not mean that it was violating all the rules initially.companies are made to COMPLY with certain rules for future references as well.
NOW when we look at option C
C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees ------> there by we are assuming that "swift co" has some such disabled employes.how can we be so sure about this? it might be case that the companies are being made to comply ADA and that the "American authorities" have laid down some "pointers" as what is to be done.after all there have been companies who have been discriminating against disabled people and have not been hiring them in the first place.So one step to stop discrimination against such people would be to make them comply with ADA.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:29 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by RiyaR » Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:24 am
Why cant the answer be B?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:19 am
aditya8062 wrote:Thanks Guru for your reply
i really like the way you have approached E. but please clarify some more aspects of C

the argument is talking about the compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
the argument has laid down some points that are to be followed to make a company comply with ADA act .these points are in totality.some might fall in the purview of the company and some may not.for instance if a company is made to comply with ISO standards then it does not mean that it was violating all the rules initially.companies are made to COMPLY with certain rules for future references as well.
NOW when we look at option C
C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees ------> there by we are assuming that "swift co" has some such disabled employes.how can we be so sure about this? it might be case that the companies are being made to comply ADA and that the "American authorities" have laid down some "pointers" as what is to be done.after all there have been companies who have been discriminating against disabled people and have not been hiring them in the first place.So one step to stop discrimination against such people would be to make them comply with ADA.
As noted in my edited post above, C is not a viable answer choice.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:47 pm
Followed by:2 members

by Nick0203 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:07 am
The situation describes a recent remodel to the SwiftCo offices in order for them to comply with ADA regulations. The changes are described in some detail, from ramps to parking spots to door knobs.
(A) The changes made may or may not align SwiftCo with ADA regulations. Therefore, although answer choice A could be true, it does not necessarily have to be.
(B) makes some sense, but doesn't have to be true, SwiftCo can simply be acting proactively in order to comply with standards.
(C) Correct. The phrase does not even give 100% certainty that the handles were out of reach, it merely states that it was a possibility. The remodel would not have been carried out if everything was already handy. If the handles were lowered, it's likely because some people couldn't reach them, but it could also have been a practical improvement. No matter the situation, answer choice C must therefore be true.
(D) makes a completely unsupported claim.
(E) If the company is installing adaptive equipment, it might be in order to comply with ADA regulations; however it might also be another proactive practice put in place by management of their own volition.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1