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.
Official Answer D
why D?
ReplyDeleteE seems the right answer.
A: A is not the answer because of the wording "all" in "all those who have demanded this resignation"
ReplyDeleteThe chairman clearly states it is the individuals seeking to control the corporation have demanded his resignation. Thus the individuals seeking to control is a subset in the bigger group of individuals who have demanded his resignation. Thus A is not the answer
B: B is not the answer. No where has the chairman agreed that he has committed misdeeds. Nowhere has he agreed that he had committed misdeeds to enhance the sucess of the corp. Thus B is not the answer
C: C is not the answer. If you read statements 2 & 3 together, you will notice that the chairman is implying he has not been "proved" guilty and thus that makes him innocent. However, C states specifically the chairman is innocent of any criminal offense. He has not been proved guilty as a result he stakes claim to be innocent, however, C states that the chairman is proved innocent.
E: If you read statements 1 & 2 carefully, you will see that charges are "levelled" against the chairman. But levelled where? There is no clarity on that. Further, if you read the language of statement 2, it clearly shows the chairman is rebuffing the charges levelled, because courts of law have not determined him guilty. That cannot be concluded to mean that he fought a case and got acquitted. It simply might mean to say that even though charges are levelled on him, there is no case pending on him in the courts.