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
CR: Factory Safety Act
This topic has expert replies
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
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]
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
- mkmgmat
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
I am still not convinced: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]
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...
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
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.
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
- mkmgmat
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:13 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
Provision 2 does not mention automobile factory. It only says that a factory cannot be S-code 10 factory without punctual inspections.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.
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...
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
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?
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
--
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
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:650
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.