It has been against the law for federal agencies

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

What are the differences between B and D?
Source: gmatclub

It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability. Now that Congress has approved legislation to expand these existing provisions to cover private industry as well, the number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

The author of the above argument must be assuming which of the following?

Many congressmen were reluctant to pass the new legislation to prevent discrimination against the disabled.
Some private employers in the past deliberately chose not to hire qualified but disabled job applicants.
The federal government currently employs more disabled people than does private industry.
The approved legislation would stop discrimination against the disabled in the public and private sectors.

[Kweku.Amoako]

What is the answer? Also I don't see option E

B sounds to me like a good option...is the anser B ?

Conclusion: The number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

Premise 1 : It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability

Premise 2 : Congress has approved legislation to expand these existing provisions to cover private industry as well

Rephrase: The number of unemployed disabled people will drop because the law(discriminating against a qualified job applicant b'cos a disability) that orignally applied to federal agencies & contractors has been expanded to cover private industry as well
B If the author thinks more qualified disabled people will be employed in the private industry because of the expansion of this law he must be making the assumption that at least some employers are delibrately not hiring qualified disabled people

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

In your opinion, why D is wrong?

[Kweku.Amoako]

Based on the conclusion it appears to me the law is being expanded to decrease unemployment for qualified disabled applicants not necessarily to stop the discrimination

in D, it may be true that the law may also stop discrimination but we can not support that from the question stem.

Another way I'm thinking about the conclusion is trying to assess how confident the author is about his conclusion.....Considering this I can extrapulate from the question stem that the author is certain umemployment will drop for the qualified and disabled applicant. The stem provides no evidence about the authors confidence level about the law stopping discrimination.

[RonPurewal]

What is the answer? Also I don't see option E

B sounds to me like a good option...is the anser B ?

Conclusion: The number of disabled people who are involuntarily unemployed will drop substantially.

Premise 1 : It has been against the law for federal agencies and federal contractors to discriminate against a qualified job applicant because of a disability

Premise 2 : Congress has approved legislation to expand these existing provisions to cover private industry as well

Rephrase: The number of unemployed disabled people will drop because the law(discriminating against a qualified job applicant b'cos a disability) that orignally applied to federal agencies & contractors has been expanded to cover private industry as well
B If the author thinks more qualified disabled people will be employed in the private industry because of the expansion of this law he must be making the assumption that at least some employers are delibrately not hiring qualified disabled people

correct.

in short:
if the new legislation is going to have any effect at all, it MUST be true that there are people who have been discriminated against because of their disabilities.

remember the reversal method for assumptions:
if you REVERSE the assumption, the argument should be DESTROYED.

if you reverse assumption (b) - there have not been qualified but disabled people whom employers have refused to hire - then the law will have zero effect, so the argument falls apart.

[RonPurewal]

In your opinion, why D is wrong?

the relative numbers of employees in federal government vs. private industry is irrelevant to the question.

in fact, federal employees are completely irrelevant altogether, as the law already covers them. the passage is concerned only with the effects of the new changes, which are solely concerned with private industry.