Company Spokesperson: Charges that our corporation has discriminated a

Official Explanation

What makes this question difficult is that some of the incorrect answer choices are somewhat relevant to the argument, but their relevance is neither as clear nor as direct as choice (B).

Let’s start with the correct answer. Although a large percentage of the company’s employees are women, it is entirely possible that these women generally occupy low-level positions while male employees generally hold higher-level jobs. One possible explanation for such a discrepancy would be that, when deciding whom to promote, the company discriminates against women. Hence, the answer to the question in choice (B) is highly relevant to evaluating the spokesperson’s denial that the company engages in this type of discrimination.

The issue raised in choice (A) would be relevant to whether the company’s employee-termination practices are discriminatory, especially if the average tenure for women turned out to be significantly briefer than for men. However, the issue of tenure is not directly relevant to the company’s hiring or promotion practices.

Nor is the issue raised in choice (C) directly relevant to the argument. For example, assume that the percentage of the company’s employees that are women is typical among firms in its industry. So what? Perhaps all of the firms discriminate against women or perhaps none does.

As for choice (D), the company’s practices in the past are not directly relevant to its current practices.

Choice (E) focuses on only one high-level employee, hardly a sufficient statistical sampling to prove a pattern of discrimination. Also, even with a female CEO, a company could very well engage in hiring and promotion practices that are unfair to women.

The correct answer is (B).