Inference Question

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

Inference Question

by [email protected] » Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:39 am
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


Can any of the experts please help me in understanding that why C is not the answer. I am confused between C and D.
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:59 am
Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this. :-)

The chairman says: "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." So, in a legal sense, the courts say he is innocent --- no one has been able to pin anything on him. We have to distinguish between (a) innocence or guilt as the courts can establish, vs. (b) innocence or guilt in fact, in truth (one could say, innocent or guilty "in God's eyes", if one resonates with that language).

We know the chairman is innocent in the first sense, in the sense that in any cases that went to trial, he beat the rap. This could be because he is truly innocent (what he would like us to believe!) Or, it could be because, after the crime, he had his underlings hide any evidence, and he was able to hire a dream team of lawyers, and maybe he even had a US Senator lean a bit on the judge, and the upshot was, surprise, surprise, the courts didn't manage to convict him of anything.

The fact that no conviction has stood up against him in a court of law does not necessarily mean that he is lily-white innocent, pure as the new fallen snow. Therefore, answer C is not correct.

Meanwhile, if the corporation has had a "six-year record of growth", that seems to suggest it has expanded steadily. Answer = D

Does that make sense?

Mike :-)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/

Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:36 am
What is the problem with A?

Thanks.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:54 pm
Dear mankey,

The principle problem with A is that it is not inferred --- it's stated quite directly.

If I say: "Our single car garage is not enough for our family's need any more" --- they you might infer something about the family now having more than one car, or now needing additional storage space, something like that. But the very fact that the family has a single car garage --- that's not inferred, that's stated explicitly.

Does that distinction make sense?

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/