CR: Factory Safety Act

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]

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).

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.

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.

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.