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

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