In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a criminal record

Hi Aditya,

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

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

Official explanation:
Answer: C

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.

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!!

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.

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

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

B contradicts with the premise. Hence, B is out.
D is not good enough, and D does not directly connect with the conclusion.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Answer: C

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.

I Don't fully understand this explanation.

In any way, whether managers decline because of criminal reason or else, it is obvious that they are already "aware" of criminal record.
For me in both cases, they are violating the regulation. Thus, (C) doesn't weaken the argument "Whether the corporation has actually violated the regulation depends entirely on whether those in a position to hire were aware of the applicants’ criminal records." at all.

Please clarify.
Thank you.

(A) The LMN corporation hired several people with criminal records between 5 and 10 years ago.
If the employers didn't know about the same then it's not a violation

(B) The LMN corporation is owned by a business that, for security reasons, is exempt from the hiring regulation.
This is out of context and doesn't make any sense or impact on the argument


(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.
This violates since the candidates were denied opportunities on the basis of some other reason they might be relevant or irrelevant
therefore let us hang on to it

(D) Most of the applicants with criminal records who were refused employment at LMN were then able to easily find employment at similar businesses.
These reasons of the candidates denila in the LMN corporation is unknown therefore we cannot take a conclusive stand on the same

(E) The hiring regulation was put into place six years ago.
Still the time frame comes inside the 5 year regulation

Therefore IMO C

MartyMurray KarishmaB How does option C weaken the argument ?

Posted from my mobile device