Critical Reasoning

SwiftCo recently remodeled its offices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that certain businesses make their properties accessible to those with disabilities. Contractors built ramps where stairs had been, increased the number of handicapped parking spaces in the parking lot, lowered door knobs and cabinet handles, and installed adaptive computer equipment.

Which of the following is the most likely inference based on the statements above?

(A) SwiftCo is now in compliance with ADA requirements.

(B) SwiftCo has at least one employee or customer who uses a wheelchair.

(C) Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees.

(D) The costs of the renovation were less than what SwiftCo would have been liable for had it been sued for ADA violations.

(E) Businesses without adaptive computer equipment are in violation of the ADA.

my doubt: i fail to understand as why E cannot be the answer here .honestly to me C is not giving any concrete information.

C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees-----> is this statement about "swift CO"? how can we know that? there is no mention of "swift Co" in option C!! option C can very well be a plain statement about any company in general, a situation that might not be true even. E, on the other hand, seems very reasonable

This question is from the Veritas Prep Advanced Verbal book.

It is an inference question. So you are looking for the answer that must be true!

Your statement:

honestly to me C is not giving any concrete information.

Is exactly what makes C a great inference answer choice.

With an inference question, generally the weaker the statement the better! Because you are looking for an answer that Must be true.

That is why saying that "some doors and cabinets may been out of reach" makes for a great answer. It is certainly easy to say that they "may have been out of reach."

C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees-----> is this statement about "swift CO"? how can we know that? there is no mention of "swift Co" in option C!! option C can very well be a plain statement about any company in general, a situation that might not be true even. E on the other hand seems very reasonable.

Now you are just trying to argue in favor or your preferred answer! Clearly C is talking about SwiftCo. SwiftCo is where the renovation has taken place. Besides, even if C was not talking just about SwiftCo it is the kind of statement that is true of everything. Any company "might" have had cabinets that were out of reach.

For example, if I say that you "might earn a 700 on the GMAT." This is true of you and is true of every other person in the world. Anyone "might" earn that score!


On the other hand Choice E, which you favor, is a definite statement that requires definite proof. AND Choice E clearly applies to All businesses everywhere. So for Choice E to NOT be 'inferred" I just need to give you one hypothetical business that has no computer equipment at all. I am sure that there are some. We have farm stands that just sell vegetables for cash - not computers involved. If there are not computers then adaptive computer equipment is not required.

The allegations you make against C actually hit home against E!

Did you approach this as an inference question? When you demand "concrete information" it appears to me that you might have been taking this as something other than an inference question.

Here is the text of an article I wrote for the Veritas Prep Blog. It is Called "Shift the Burden on Inference Questions" and it directly addresses the issue you have here.

"The correct answer to an inference question is the answer that must be true based on the facts given in the stimulus. This is an imposing standard for an answer choice to try to meet.

Yet there are times when the way the answer choice is worded actually shifts the balance so that the answer is presumed to be true unless it is disproven. It is in your best interests to look closely at such an answer choice, because there is a good chance that it is the correct answer.

Take the following: "Atmospheric waves might not be the only factor that effects the formation of hurricanes." This answer choice effectively shifts the burden so that the only way "might not be the only factor" would be untrue is if it can be shown that atmospheric waves ARE the only factor that effects the formation of hurricanes.
This is a complete reversal. Instead of presuming that the answer could be false and looking for information that would make it true, you can presume that the answer is true and only eliminate if definite information shows it is false.

Take the following two statements: "I will win the lottery." "I might win the lottery." The first statement takes an incredibly high level of proof. Basically the lottery has to be "rigged" for you to know for sure that you will win. But for the second statement to be true, you just need to have an lottery ticket. Sure, the odds are against your winning, but until you actually lose, you still might win. The second statement would be the correct answer if the stimulus merely indicates that you hold a lottery ticket.

A word like "might" is a great way to shift the burden, but even without it, an answer choice can still shift the burden. Let's reword our previous example about hurricanes: "Atmospheric waves cannot be the only factor that affects the formation of hurricanes." This statement is no longer just a possibility; it is a definite statement and seems to be harder to prove. In fact, all that is needed to make this the correct answer is one example in the stimulus of a hurricane's formation being influenced by something other than the atmospheric waves. "Cannot be the only" is another great way to shift the burden.

Try the following question from the Veritas Prep Critical Reasoning book. Be sure to look for the answer choice that shifts the burden.

In a recent study, a group of subjects had their normal daily caloric intake increased by 25 percent. This increase was entirely in the form of alcohol. Another group of similar subjects had alcohol replace nonalcoholic sources of 25 percent of their normal daily caloric intake. All subjects gained body fat over the course of study, and the amount of body fat gained was the same for both groups.
Which one of following is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Alcohol is metabolized more quickly by the body than are other food and drinks.

(B) In [the] general population, alcohol is the primary cause of gains in body fat.

(C) An increased amount of body fat does not necessarily imply a weight gain.

(D) Body-fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes.

(E) The proportion of calories from alcohol in a diet is more significant for body fat gain than are the total calories from alcohol.

Did you see which one shifts the burden? Answer Choice D. The statement, "Body fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes," requires only that some other factor also affects body-fat gain. The stimulus gives you that factor in the form of alcohol consumption. The stimulus also indicates that one group increased its calorie intake and the other group did not, yet both groups gained the same amount of body fat. Clearly calories are not the only factor in body fat gain, and Choice D is correct.

When you find an answer choice that "shifts the burden" on an inference question, pay close attention, because that answer choice just might be correct."

Now you are just trying to argue in favor or your preferred answer! Clearly C is talking about SwiftCo. SwiftCo is where the renovation has taken place. Besides, even if C was not talking just about SwiftCo it is the kind of statement that is true of everything. Any company "might" have had cabinets that were out of reach.

the argument is talking about the compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
the argument has laid down some points that are to be followed to make a company comply with ADA act .these points are in totality.some might fall in the purview of the company and some may not.for instance if a company is made to comply with ISO standards then it does not mean that it was violating all the rules initially.companies are made to COMPLY with certain rules for future references as well.
NOW when u look at option C
C says: Prior to the renovation, some doors and cabinets may have been out of reach for some employees ------> there by you are assuming that "swift co" has some such disabled employes.what is the proof of this?

thanks

David@GMATPrepNow wrote: Businesses with disabled employees or customers have to comply with ADA,

where is this line (that you have written) in the premise?

the premise as written is: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that certain businesses make their properties accessible to those with disabilities--->the premise states just "certain business" NOT "business with disabled employes".
"certain business" does not mean "business with disable employes" .

in fact if u really go by the definition of ADA then ADA applies to any business that employes more than 15 number of employes (i really do not want to go into the details of ADA) but modifiers in the present premise does not state a line that u have written