souvik101990 wrote:
Company policy: An employee of our company must be impartial, particularly when dealing with family matters. This obligation extends to all aspects of the job, including hiring and firing practices and the quality of service the employee provides customers.
Which one of the following employee behaviors most clearly violates the company policy cited above?
(A) Refusing to hire any of one’s five siblings, even though they are each more qualified than any other applicant
(B) Receiving over 100 complaints about the service one’s office provides and sending a complimentary product to all those who complain, including one’s mother
(C) Never firing a family member, even though three of one’s siblings work under one’s supervision and authority
(D) Repeatedly refusing to advance an employee, claiming that he has sometimes skipped work and that his work has been sloppy, even though no such instances have occurred for over two years
(E) Promoting a family member over another employee in the company
Day 16 Question of the Verbal Contest:
Race Against the GMAT Club TimerPlease make sure to post a brief reply without revealing your solution to enter the contest!
to put the argument in brief:
company employee must be impartial toward jobs in firing or promoting or customer services…
--> find which one partial, or say, violate the given policy ...
(A) refuse to hire someone more qualified for the job, since its his own siblings, just this sounds having bias toward one group of people… this choice perfectly involves "comparing the competency" of two groups of people, and it could also be a partial example in that the more competent group is his own relatives but you don't hire them since they have blood relationship with you
(B) if he is willing to listen to complaints from all people except his mother, then this will be partial, and also vice versa, thus this must be an impartial one
(C)trap choice, ”never firing a family member” sounds a bit of nepotism as well as partial, however compare (C) to (A), we don’t know, in reality, whether the family member is worth firing or not or how its competency is….
(D)just that its no family matter or firing or hiring involved in this statement, or break down in another way--as we know from statement in (D) that "over these two years" there indeed has bias occur, however beside these two years maybe bias occur-then (D) in this situation would be correct- or maybe no bias no violation to the policy occur, so its just too ambiguous to determine whether (D) violate the given policy or not
(E)this choice same as (C), though at first sight seems partial in that it “promote a family member…”, however if compare to (A) we don’t know whether the family member is worth promotion or not