GMAT Verbal | GMAT Critical Reasoning Q2

This GMAT verbal practice question is a critical reasoning question. This question is a resolve the paradox question.

Question 2

The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) was designed to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently-abled workers in the workplace. However, after the act was introduced, there has been a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled.

Which of the following best explains this seeming discrepancy?

1. A number of differently-abled people chose not to work
2. Not willing to deal with the issues of workplace discrimination of the differently-abled, several companies recruited fewer of them in the first place
3. Knowing that the act was about to be enforced, companies terminated some of the differently-abled while they had a chance
4. There was no act introduced that would guarantee a job for the differently-abled
5. The unemployment among the able-bodied has remained consistently high

---

---

Video Explanation

Play Video: GMAT CR Resolve the Paradox Question Video Solution

---

---

Explanatory Answer

Step 1 of solving this GMAT CR Question: Analyzing the Argument

An Act that was designed to help the differently-abled seems to have had a detrimental effect on their employment levels.

This seeming contradiction in the argument has to be removed by adding information that will explain the lower employment levels after the introduction of the Act. The correct option should also accept that the law was designed to help the differently-abled and not question its motives.

Step 2: Process of Elimination

• Option (A) can be eliminated because it does not explain why the differently-abled chose not to work at a time when the government is making things easier for them to work.

• Option (C) can be eliminated because the option seems to imply that the Act tried to prevent the termination of the employment of the differently-abled, when the argument does not say so. Also, the option seems to imply that the differently-abled were treated unfairly – implying that the Act is a failure.

• Option (D) does not explain why unemployment has increased. There has never been an Act guaranteeing jobs. So why has the unemployment among the differently-abled increased now?

• Option (E) is irrelevant to the discussion. The Act and the discussion on unemployment is pertinent only to the differently-abled and the situation faced by the able-bodied has no impact on this scenario.

• Option (B) resolves the paradox by explaining why the unemployment among the differently-abled has increased. Because companies want to avoid future complications (that may be caused by the Act), they have reduced employment.

Choice B is the correct answer.