Hiring Manager: Here at Lightwave Industries, we have

VERITAS PREP Official Explanation

Answer B - The hiring manager’s logic is flawed because it relies on the assumption that if you interview someone, you can properly assess his/her personality traits. What if the person you are interviewing is able to effectively hide personality traits that he/she knows are not well suited for the company and/or the position. You think you have found someone with the right personality, but you have not!

Answer choice (B) is the correct answer because it eliminates this possibility: if an applicant is not able to hide personality traits, then this argument is much better.

For answer choice (A), if there are reasons to interview other than assessing personality, then this does not have an impact on this argument.

Answer choice (C) also does not matter: if some of the interviewers are incapable of properly assessing a personality match, it is not a problem. Maybe only one interviewer cannot, and he/she is used for interviews in which assessing person.

For (D), the views of other companies are irrelevant and (E) does not address the issue of interviews and how they relate to assessing personality. Answer is (B).

Choice between B and C is very controversial

For instance, one might argue that OK in C if not all interviewers are capable of determining the fit of the candidate isn't a problem because most others will and you know maybe they have several rounds of interviews so it isn't a big deal. Fair enough

But in B someone else might say. Well this same reasoning applies here as well no? If AN applicant, and that's the key words cause we are taking about singular here, is able to hide his personality traits, well what if he wasn't good enough for the job in terms of skills, then no one cares, they just don't hire him for another reason and the argument doesn't necessarily has to fall apart. It will if the guy is hired regardless of this but we cannot assume this.

Does anyone feel like discussing this one further?

Cheers!
J: )

I don't think B is correct answer.

Option C says All interviewers at Lightwave Industries are capable of determining whether a candidate's personality is a good fit for the company and position. So even if the candidate tries to hide his actual side, the interviewer will be able to find this out. So I think C is the correct option.

Also the argument is that the company strongly says that they place importance to the interview. That mean they would have specialist who will surely be able to identify the suitable candidates even if the candidate is best in hiding his/her actual personality.

hi ravinder,
you are right that C can be valid assumption.. but if you look at the wording All interviewers at Lightwave Industries are capable... using 'all' makes it a very strong statement.. it can be possible there are 50 odd interviewers in which one is not capable... this is the reason C is out and B is the answer as B is a valid assumption

Hey Chetan,

thanks for replying on this but I am finding it hard to accept the fact that why there may be one when the options says 'All'. GMAT will surely use 'SOME' or 'Most' to express it clearly.

Hi,
This is the very reason it is not the answer..
This assumption need not be true since if one out of all the interviewer is not qualified, the argument would be valid... .. Had it been most, it could have been the answer.
And gmat will test you very often on this issue.
OK tell me if one out of 100 interviewer is not qualified, will the logic of argument still stand... If yes than this choice is wrong and if no, it is correct.

Between B and c

I marked C.I agree C is too extreme,but it is better than B
B would have been better option,if it had mentioned that an applicant cannot hide personality traits that may be detrimental to the given position or company during interview or in whole processes including resume analysis, interviews, and a thorough vetting of all references .What if applicant cannot hide personality traits detrimental to company in a resume but can hide during interview,then interviewer may select the applicant.

When it is clearly mentioned in Answer C that "all" interviewers are capable of judging a prospective employees personality then how can we assume that some of the interviewers are not that well equipped to do the same.
I found the explanation very confusing and modified as per the OA.

Hi Puneet,

Actually both B and C make the cut. It is possible that the company uses only few interviewers to actually interview the candidates.. (some maybe used to make questions etc..) hence using "all" is strong. You can have a not so perfect team still conduct the interviews by the best.

Negate B: It is possible to hide detrimental traits... that means even with the thorough interviews the company can select some not so good applicants..

I was tied between B and C but chose C wrongly.. Your opinion on my take perhaps..

Regards,
Dom.

Hey there,
To me C is out not because of the word "all", which I actually think makes perfect sense to be there. C is incorrecr because, in the stem, we read the part in red. What it says is that if there were no interviews, them sometimes they would hire unsuitable people. In other words, if there are interviews they would not hire unsuitable people. For this to be true, then the fact that "all" interviewers are able to find the unsuitable people through an interview is an assumption. BUT!!! C does not focus on why interviews are powerful in determining unsiotable candidates. But about Lightwave Industries being able to use them. This is irrelevant, because the point the hiring manager tries to make is that "interviews" bring out the unsuitable candidates, even if Lightwave Industries do not have good interviewers.

This is why B is the correct assumption. Because, if the applicant is a master in hiding important elements of his personality, then the interview could possibly lead to an incorrect decision to hire. Also, on the contrary, someone might be really bad at interviews, and the interview could lead to a rejection, even though this person would end up being a good match.

Can someone point out the flaw in the below line of reasnoning?


Here's the hiring manager's reasoning-
No Interviews => Some Unfit Candidates get in. This is logically equivalent to No Unfit candidate gets in => interviews happened. (A=>B <=> Not B=> Not A)

Negating Option C, If not all interviews can weed out unfit people, some unfit people get in => interviews are not successful The hiring manager's reasoning breaks down.

Also with Option B, there is no additional information provided as to whether the ability of a candidate to hide certain qualities has any effect on the ability of the interviewer to spot them, seems like we're talking about two independent phenomenon . Jumping to this conclusion with this assumption alone to be a leap really (maybe if the wording was on the lines 'if candidates can successfully hide their qualities on interview', it probably would have lent more support to this option).

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo I think the question itself is flawed. Answer choice (C) is much more convincing. Could you please help to elaborate?

Is it (C) is not an assumption made by the argument and we don't necessarily need all interviews to be capable of this, only the ones informing (or making) hiring decisions?

Both option A and C can be rejected because of the extreme opinions in both of them.

Conclusion: Interviews are important because without them, we might hire people with unsuitable personalities.

We are looking for an assumption (something that MUST be true):

A. The only purpose of a job interview is to assess the personality of an applicant.
Not necessary. A job interview could be serving other purposes too.

B. An applicant is not able to hide personality traits that may be detrimental to the given position or company.
True. We are saying that interviews are important - without them, we may hire some people with unsuitable personalities. So this means that with interviews, we do not hire people with unsuitable personalities. So people with unsuitable personalities are not able to hide their personalities. Otherwise, if people were able to hide their personalities, an interview may not have been that effective.

C. All interviewers at Lightwave Industries are capable of determining whether a candidate's personality is a good fit for the company and position.
The most popular incorrect option - note here the use of the word "interviewers". I agree that had this been "interview", I would have been biting my nails on this question. But interviewers makes it very clear that this is not an assumption. We cannot say that an interview must have a single interviewer and that there would be a single interview. In fact, the question says "the process involves interviews (plural)". So even if ALL interviewers are not capable, the conclusion can still hold.

D. Most companies agree that a good personality fit is the most important factor in the job application process.
Irrelevant. Whether it is important or not, we cannot say. This company looks for it and that is all we know.

E. Lightwave Industries is not a business for which having a good personality match is a particularly important hiring trait.
Again, whether it is important or not, we cannot say. Lightwave looks for it, that is all.

Answer (B)

Was between B and C and went with B because it felt slightly better.
To be frank, the logic being cited for not choosing C doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.

The question stem specifically states "if not for interviews, we might OCASSIONALLY hire people with bad personalities". This seems to suggest that if even SOME of the interviewers are incapable of determining good fit, then the company would in fact hire people with bad personalities ON OCCASION.

The conclusion is : The interviews are most important
Premise : without them, we might occasionally hire people with personalities that are poorly suited to both the company and the specific position.
So why are the interviews so important
Assumption: The clients who might have been hired without interview did most damage to the company.
So by taking interviews experts can see which personality traits are fit for the position.

What it says is that the interviews are THE MOST IMPORTANT because IF NOT for the interviews, we would OCCASIONALLY hire bad people. The assumption clearly lies somewhere with the efficacy of the interview process.
B leans on the credibility of those being interviewed, C leans on the ability of those conducting the interview.

The question statement says that the interviews prevent bad people from being hired, even on occasion. This means that the interviews are infallible, because no one slips through the cracks. Not even "occasionally".

I'm sure the intent of answer C being wrong is that it suggests that "ALL" of the interviewers must be capable of sussing out bad fits, and because "absolute" language is typically frowned upon in CR it ends up losing to B - but i don't see how the absoluteness of this statement contradicts the seemingly similar absoluteness in the question stem.