It is currently 18 Mar 2018, 06:40

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Posts: 14
Schools: Mays Business School - Class of 2016

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 00:36
4
KUDOS
17
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:42) correct 45% (01:44) wrong based on 613 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a criminal record violates federal hiring regulations. The LMN Corporation is not exempt from this regulation, yet an analysis of their hiring practices shows that they have not hired anyone with a criminal record for the past five years, even though they have had numerous opportunities to do so. Whether the corporation has actually violated the regulation, however, depends entirely on whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records.

Which of the following points out a weakness in the argument above?

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago

This question is from Veritas question bank. Although I got it right, I wanted to have a discussion regarding the correct answer choice.

OE after discussion!

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by adityag85 on 04 Jan 2013, 00:48, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 64
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Re: In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a crimin [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 00:48
3
KUDOS
after POE C remains.

so i will go with C..

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago --> IRRELEVANT
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation--> AGAINST PREMISE
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason--> LAST MAN STANDING
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses--> IRRELEVANT
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago -->IRRELEVANT

Best Regards,
Mansoor

Intern
Status: Winning is not everything, but wanting to win is
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 34
WE 1: IT Consultant (6Yr)
Re: In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a crimin [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 01:12
In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a criminal record violates federal hiring regulations. The LMN Corporation is not exempt from this regulation, yet an analysis of their hiring practices shows that they have not hired anyone with a criminal record for the past five years, even though they have had numerous opportunities to do so. Whether the corporation has actually violated the regulation, however, depends entirely on whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records.

Which of the following points out a weakness in the argument above?

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago

This question is from Veritas question bank. Although I got it right, I wanted to have a discussion regarding the correct answer choice.

OE after discussion!

I feel the two contenders are C & D.Though i'm not sure, i feel that D is a better option here as C gives a reason which may go two ways whereas D hints towrads the violation of the policy.

Thanks
Jatin
Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Posts: 14
Schools: Mays Business School - Class of 2016
Re: In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a crimin [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2013, 00:47
I was stuck between (B) and (C), but realized it's going against the premise. The official answer is indeed (C).

Official explanation:

Explanation: The author concludes that determining whether LMN has violated the hiring regulation depends ONLY on whether the person doing the hiring knew of the applicants’ criminal records. However, other factors could play a part. Someone from LMN could be aware of the record, but choose not to hire the person for another reason; that’s not a violation. Or perhaps the applicant was discriminated against because of a criminal record; that is a violation.

(A) This does not say whether LMN has violated the regulation in the last 5 years.

(B) This may be, but the author makes clear that LMN itself is NOT exempt.

(D) This proves nothing. We don’t know what the circumstances were at the other businesses. Perhaps LMN had different needs than these other businesses.

(E) This tells us nothing regarding the hiring practices of the last 5 years, which is all that is under discussion.

mansoorfarooqui wrote:
after POE C remains.

so i will go with C..

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago --> IRRELEVANT
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation--> AGAINST PREMISE
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason--> LAST MAN STANDING
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses--> IRRELEVANT
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago -->IRRELEVANT

Best Regards,
Mansoor

Manager
Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 64
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2013, 03:22

it was a good question.. shows how answer choices are hard to choose in higher difficulty questions..

+1kudos
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 40

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2013, 14:47
i had the same query. what i m not getting is - if we just look at the option C.. does it actually weaken the arguement?? the conclusion is that whether the company violates the regulation or not can be determined only when its clear if the hirers knw about the criminal record.. option c states:

An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason.

can it be not implied that- an applicant who has disclosed the criminal record , was either chosen or not chosen and after knowing the decision (chosen or not) would clear the image if the company violated rules or not? coz if this can be implied then certainly i dun think its weakening the argument..

Any help would be appreciated!!
Manager
Status: Still Struggling
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 130
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-15-2011
GPA: 3.71
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2013, 18:40
I'll like to try on explaining this. The argument can be summed up that LMN organization's violation cannot be determined because it's not proved anyhow in the argument that the people who were in a position to hire declined the offer after they knew about the person's background.

Now, Option A,B,E are irrelevant options. If somehow we could prove that people where denied the opportunity AFTER they admitted about their criminal records, we could prove that LMN corporation was denying based on the past history.
Now option D --> we are not bothered about other organizations. All we want it a sentence that would link up a person's criminal records with denial of the application.

And IMO, Option C is the best option that we can go with.
P.S. - even with elimination method, we arrive at the same conclusion.

Let me know if you need any more explanation.
_________________

Knewton Free Test 10/03 - 710 (49/37)
Princeton Free Test 10/08 - 610 (44/31)
Kaplan Test 1- 10/10 - 630
Veritas Prep- 10/11 - 630 (42/37)
MGMAT 1 - 10/12 - 680 (45/34)

Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 40

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2013, 08:01
1
KUDOS
I understand your approach Krishnasty but let me try to explain it in DS way. The argument's conclusion was the UNCERTAINTY in deciding if they are violators or not. If we go by C it helps to DECIDE the same,bringing at end to the uncertainty hence i dont find it apt as well.

By POE ofcourse answer has to be C but i think none of the answers are weakening it in real. Kindly tell me if i m missing out on something
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 313

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2013, 08:33
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a criminal record violates federal hiring regulations. The LMN Corporation is not exempt from this regulation, yet an analysis of their hiring practices shows that they have not hired anyone with a criminal record for the past five years, even though they have had numerous opportunities to do so. Whether the corporation has actually violated the regulation, however, depends entirely on whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records.

Which of the following points out a weakness in the argument above?

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago

This question is from Veritas question bank. Although I got it right, I wanted to have a discussion regarding the correct answer choice.

OE after discussion!

Hey all, the reason C is the correct answer is because of the subtle shift in wording from the premise to the conclusion. In the premise, the company policy is not to discriminate against potential employees who have a criminal record, and the conclusion subtly changes that to whether the hiring managers were aware of the criminal record.

This makes sense because you figure they can't discriminate against something they're not aware of, but what about the converse. The hiring manager could be aware of the criminal record, but they could dismiss the potential candidate for lack of experience or belligerent attitude or any other valid reason. This would not be against company policy. Conversely, they could refuse the candidate solely on the basis of the criminal record, which is clearly a violation of the company policy.

Therefore, the stated conclusion has a massive flaw: The hiring managers may be aware of the criminal record and not hire because of it, or they could be aware of the criminal record and not care but decline based on another valid reason. The first case is a violation of company policy, the second is not. Therefore, we need more than to simply be aware of the criminal record, we need to know how they used that information. C matches this expectation and exposes this flaw.

Hope this helps!
-Ron
_________________
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 40

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2013, 08:36
thank you so much
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 471
Concentration: Finance, Marketing

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2016, 04:08
In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a criminal record violates federal hiring regulations. The LMN Corporation is not exempt from this regulation, yet an analysis of their hiring practices shows that they have not hired anyone with a criminal record for the past five years, even though they have had numerous opportunities to do so. Whether the corporation has actually violated the regulation, however, depends entirely on whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records.
[/color]

so a flaw will indicate that corporate is violating even if those in a position to hire were not aware. Well, even if Interviewer doesn't know, it doesn't mean that nobody in the company doesn't know. Lets say they work with a consultancy who send them fit for them. And they know that this is unspoken practice. So the file of those people will not reach to the person in position to hire.

Which of the following points out a weakness in the argument above?

A. The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago
B. The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation
C. An applicant who makes it clear that he or she has a criminal record might have been refused employment for that reason, or for an unrelated reason
D. Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses
E. The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago

Therefore, the stated conclusion has a massive flaw: The hiring managers may be aware of the criminal record and not hire because of it, or they could be aware of the criminal record and not care but decline based on another valid reason. The first case is a violation of company policy, the second is not. Therefore, we need more than to simply be aware of the criminal record, we need to know how they used that information. C matches this expectation and exposes this flaw.

So what you saying is : Hiring managers are aware. And that's what the question is saying that it all boils down to "whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records." then how it is a flaw.

VeritasPrepRon VeritasPrepKarishma daagh
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 228
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2018, 22:51
B contradicts with the premise. Hence, B is out.
D is not good enough, and D does not directly connect with the conclusion.
Re: In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a   [#permalink] 03 Mar 2018, 22:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by