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

Redeem

CR: Factory Safety Act

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

CR: Factory Safety Act

by mkmgmat » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:08 pm
Can somebody throw light on why A is not the answer?

--------
According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a company may operate an automobile factory only if that factory is registered as an S-Code 10 factory. In addressing whether a factory may postpone its safety inspections, this Act also stipulates that no factory can be an S-Code 10 factory without punctual inspections. Thus, under the Factory Safety Act, a factory that manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone it's safety inspections.

The argument proceeds by

A. pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs

B. considering two possible interpretations of a proposed legal regulation and eliminating the less plausible one

C. showing that the terms of the proposed Factory Safety Act are incompatible with existing legislation

D. showing that two different provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act conflict and thus cannot apply to a particular situation

E. pointing out that if a provision applies in a specific situation, it must apply in any analogous situation

Answer: D
Must find ways to tame the beast...
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm
CONDITION 1: Company cannot operate Automobile Factory until they have "S-Code"..

CONDITION 2: They can delay the inspection.. -- this is conflicting CONDITIOn 1, which clearly states that factory needs "S-code" to start

Conclusion --> An Automobile Factory (NOT S-CODE) cannot delay inspection. --- A Scenario not covered.

{A} - "jointly" word is wrong.. the situation is not due to proposal.. but an unforeseen case.

{D} - "confict" & "cannot apply to a particular situation" are two exact catches.

Hence, [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by mkmgmat » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:55 am
theCodeToGMAT wrote:CONDITION 1: Company cannot operate Automobile Factory until they have "S-Code"..

CONDITION 2: They can delay the inspection.. -- this is conflicting CONDITIOn 1, which clearly states that factory needs "S-code" to start

Conclusion --> An Automobile Factory (NOT S-CODE) cannot delay inspection. --- A Scenario not covered.

{A} - "jointly" word is wrong.. the situation is not due to proposal.. but an unforeseen case.

{D} - "confict" & "cannot apply to a particular situation" are two exact catches.

Hence, [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]
I am still not convinced:

1. What is the 'current state of affairs' as mentioned in A?
2. What is the 'particular situation' as mentioned in D?

The way I see it is that although the two provisions were written separately, when brought together (jointly) impose that an automobile factory cannot delay inspections (delaying of inspections by an automobile factory is unacceptable).
Must find ways to tame the beast...
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:30 am
PROVISION 1: NO "S-CODE" ? --> NO FACTORY
PROVISION 2: FACTORY & NO-INSPECTION --> NOT S-CODE
FACTORY & INSPECTIOn --> S-CODE
CONCLUSION : AUTOMOBILE FACTORY CANNOT POSTPONE it's INSPECTION.

{A} - PROVISION 1 & 2 are NOT jointly concluding that "manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone it's safety inspections"--> This is only stated by PROVISION 2.

Infact, PROVISION 1 & 2 are Contradictory.. If Provision 1 is True then Scenario of PROVISION 2 is NOT POSSIBLE.
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by mkmgmat » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:08 pm
theCodeToGMAT wrote: {A} - PROVISION 1 & 2 are NOT jointly concluding that "manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone it's safety inspections"--> This is only stated by PROVISION 2.
Provision 2 does not mention automobile factory. It only says that a factory cannot be S-code 10 factory without punctual inspections.

If I restate the argument:
Provision 1: Automobile factory has to be a S-code 10 factory.
Provision 2: S-code factory cannot delay inspections.

Only bringing the two provisions together can one say that automobile factory cannot delay inspections. I find the logic similar to Data Sufficiency.
Must find ways to tame the beast...
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:28 am
I received a private message about this thread.

This question looks a lot like an LSAT question -- and, more importantly, not at all like anything that the GMAT would test.

What's the source of this question?
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by mkmgmat » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:34 am
Hi Ron,
I can double check later today but I believe the question is from a 2003 Kaplan Guide.
Must find ways to tame the beast...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:27 am
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:650

by cd86 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:27 pm
If a company is already practicing safety norms that totally agree with the s-code 10 regulation , then the company need not pospone its inspection and hence would still be operational. So, i guess this proves that there is no conflict in the two different provisions (1.adherence to s-code 10 2.inspection on time)and hence can infact apply to a particular situation. So how is D the answer? I will go with A.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1