Critical Reasoning

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

Why answer is D and not A

Inference question is solely based on the premises.(MUST BE TRUE)

(A) The chairman believes that all those who have demanded his resignation are motivated by desire to control the corporation for their own purposes.
-->We are not sure what motivated. It could be what A describes, or it could be some people just want to demolish career of chairman, per se.

(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years.
---> D actually reiterates itself.
"Furthermore, as the corporation's unbroken six year record of growth will..."


Hope it helps.

gmatv09 wrote: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

Why answer is D and not A

good question. Even I fell for A.
However, if we look at it once more, we will know that A is not correct.
Chairman says that individuals who seek to control the corp have asked for his resignation. It may mean that all the individuals who want to control the corp have asked for his resignation. However, vice versa may not be true that all the individuals who asked for resignation are asking because they want to control corp.
If 100 individuals want to control and 150 individuals asked for resignation then chairman's point of view is correct but A will be false.
Hence E is the best option here.

I am not too good in explanation. Let me know if you didn't understand any point here.

Is it D or E, they can both be inferred from the excerpt. Can we have the OE please.

delhiboy1979 wrote:Is it D or E, they can both be inferred from the excerpt. Can we have the OE please.

OA is D.

Hmm, why not E, even E can be inferred from the excerpt.

'Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever. '

inference must be true from arguement.inference canbe infered from 2 pieces of information or can be an old information which is paraphrased. in this case, inference is a paraphrased information. D is correct.

duongthang wrote:inference must be true from arguement.inference canbe infered from 2 pieces of information or can be an old information which is paraphrased. in this case, inference is a paraphrased information. D is correct.

Could you elaborate on this please. I thought they are both paraphrased in the excerpt.

delhiboy1979 wrote:

duongthang wrote:inference must be true from arguement.inference canbe infered from 2 pieces of information or can be an old information which is paraphrased. in this case, inference is a paraphrased information. D is correct.

Could you elaborate on this please. I thought they are both paraphrased in the excerpt.

In the paragraph it states "Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever". This does not mean he has been acquitted, it could mean that the Chairman is going through the trial right now. The paragraph gives hints to this when it states, "In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty".

Hope this helps.

delhiboy1979 wrote:

duongthang wrote:inference must be true from arguement.inference canbe infered from 2 pieces of information or can be an old information which is paraphrased. in this case, inference is a paraphrased information. D is correct.

Could you elaborate on this please. I thought they are both paraphrased in the excerpt.

In the paragraph it states "Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever". This does not mean he has been acquitted, it could mean that the Chairman is going through the trial right now. The paragraph gives hints to this when it states, "In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty".

Hope this helps.

bluecollarhero wrote:

delhiboy1979 wrote:

duongthang wrote:inference must be true from arguement.inference canbe infered from 2 pieces of information or can be an old information which is paraphrased. in this case, inference is a paraphrased information. D is correct.

Could you elaborate on this please. I thought they are both paraphrased in the excerpt.

In the paragraph it states "Remember that no court of law in any state has found me guilty of any criminal offense whatsoever". This does not mean he has been acquitted, it could mean that the Chairman is going through the trial right now. The paragraph gives hints to this when it states, "In the American tradition, as you know, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty".

Hope this helps.

aha, got you now, good stuff duongthang

In ref: to E...

He could have NEVER been tried. I could say "I never was arrested for shoplifting." That could mean I've gotten away it it many times or that I've never shoplifted.

It's important to never assume anything unless the stimulus states it as fact.

D-from the passage,the company may make profit but it may not expand.
E-he is innocent until now.
therefore, E should be the answer.

+1 to E. Even if the OA is D =)

D can not be inferred from the passage no way. First of all, the argument stated unbroken record in GROWTH (exactly expansion), not profit. I eliminate D because Chairman said "as the corporations unbroken six-year record of growth will show". We can't assume will the sixth year's growth be steady.
D suggests that corporation expanded steadily over the past 6 years.

To me, E can be clearly inferred from the passage. IT doesn't state that chairman is innocent, it states that the legal proceedings has resulted in his acquittal. Also, even if he would have an issue for improper parking, there still be the record that he is guilty.

Can't agree with OA

I agree. Bad question. Looks similar to those sentence correction problems that have wrong answers.

D is not convincing, per the explanation above. E cannot be inferred. I did not fall for A at all. C is a strong statement. I chose B out of desperation. Clearly a problem that I bit never occurred in any GMAT prep, except Kaplan, maybe.