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.
OA is D which I don't understand. D is stated explicitly in the argument, it can't be an inference, right? although extreme, B was my choice
Can I please have just the folks who really have a good grasp on this respond. I have seen several answers in previous posts but none of them make sense. I want to understand the rationale here.
Letter from chairman
This topic has expert replies
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:19 pm
- Location: DC
- Thanked: 2 times
By POE, I got to D. My explanations below. When I saw that it was an inference question, I approached it the same way I do in RC questions. in RC, you have to demonstrate that the information you are inferring is found somewhere in the passage. I think you are thinking of the weaken/strengthen type of question.
sjd00d 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. - the passages talks about individuals, but we can't infer all those individuals have done what this answer claims.
(B) Any misdeeds that the chairman may have committed were motivated by his desire to enhance the success of the corporation. - We know the company grew, but we cannot infer that it grew from the chairman's misdeeds.
(C) The chairman is innocent of any criminal offense. - We can't infer this-in fact, it seems he faces some unsettled criminal charges, thus he uses innocent until proven guilty
(D) The corporation has expanded steadily over the past six years. - This can be clearly inferred from the passage because he talks about " unbroken six-year record of growth"
(E) Any legal proceedings against the chairman have resulted in his acquittal. - We don't know. He said innocent until proven guilty...so he might not have been in court yet.
OA is D which I don't understand. D is stated explicitly in the argument, it can't be an inference, right? although extreme, B was my choice
Can I please have just the folks who really have a good grasp on this respond. I have seen several answers in previous posts but none of them make sense. I want to understand the rationale here.
inference is essentially a conclusion or a statement that is logically implied in the argument
D is essentially regurgitating the following statement
"as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show...."
What is the inference here?
D is essentially regurgitating the following statement
"as the corporation’s unbroken six-year record of growth will show...."
What is the inference here?
- Nailya
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 2 times
D is a bit questionable at first read as it almost repeats whats stated in the chairman's letter. however, other choices are even worse, as they either infer too much or distort the meaning. So D is the only one possible here.