The committee on sexual discrimination in the workplace

This is a great question, as sensitive subjects can trick participants with their personal biases.
We must answer the question, "Why haven't more women been accepted to executive positions?"

A. male and female executives at the same level have the same qualifications The current female executives are equally qualified, but what about the rejected female applicants?
B. they pay the same salary to senior men and senior women Salary doesn't explain the difference between the number of male and female executives.
C. ten times more men than women apply for jobs with the company This is tricky. Were all the male and female applicants equally qualified? More information is needed.
D. the work pressures and long hours make jobs with the company unattractive to married women This explains why married women don't apply, but what about unmarried women?
E. all job applicants who were rejected had fewer qualifications than those accepted This is correct. All the rejected applicants, regardless of gender, were less qualified for the position.

I am confused between C and E. But opted for E as ,"we are selecting applicants on the basis of their qualifications".
OA please..

Confused between c and e. OA please

E is the answer for me.
Though C is attractive, this option is incorrect because it gives the probability of getting a female selected is 1/10.
From the given information the probability is 1/20 for senior execs and 1/8 for junior execs. This information i not in par with the option C.
So, The Supremo cannot defend him/her self on this.
OA please.

The argument conclude that: Supremo experiences sexual discrimination at the workplace, because:
- 1/20 senior executives are female
- 5/40 junior executives are female
It must assume that the minority of the females among executive position indicates sexual discrimination.
So Supremo must should some reasonable reasons to justify these facts.
A - This might help to explain that less qualified men are not treated the same as qualified women, but still cannot explain for the ratio between male & female at this company.They might still have more qualified women.
B - Similar to A. Another aspect of sexual discrimination cannot explain for the rate.
C - This is sensible. There can be a correlation between the application rates and the success rates of men & women. But it cannot explain for the 1/20 rate.
D - The argument does not state that females here are married.
E - This indicates that all accepted candidates are of higher quality. CORRECT.

E

If there were no other eligible candidates to take the job positions, poor company can do little in terms of discrimination.

Is C wrong because it can be the case, that acceptance rate is biased for female ad male candidates ?

Nice question! C is a very tempting choice..

Correct Answer: E

Explanation:

To defend itself against a charge of discrimination the company will have to show its selections were made on the basis of merit not sex. The best way to do that is to show that none of the women who were rejected had better qualifications than the men who were appointed. Answer E implies just that but without specifying the sex of the rejected applicants.

No. of male employees: 19 +35 = 54
No. of female employees: 1+5 = 6

However the number of male applicants: number of female applicants = 10:1
Let us say that the number of male applicants = 10x. Hence the number of female applicant is x.
So acceptance rate for male applicants = 54:10x = 5.4/x
acceptance for female applicants = 6:x = 6/x

Thus the female acceptance rate is higher than male acceptance rate. This may indicate a discrimination (towards male candidates), and hence cannot help defend the company against charges of discrimination.

dont understand why e is correct? off course who are currently employed( both men and women) have better qualifications then those who are rejected

E. all job applicants who were rejected had fewer qualifications than those accepted.

choice e still doesn't address the more males in the company

only choice d make sense - the work pressure and long working hours this company job unattractive to women- means few women apply for this company jobs

Let me restate the argument for you.
Argument says that, in a company supremo
1.out of 20 senior executives, only 1 is a woman.
2. out of 40 junior executives, 5 are female.
Based on this proportion, the company is said to have sexual discrimination.

Option E : all job applicants who were rejected had fewer qualifications than those accepted.
Option E says that, for accepting an application, criteria was decided on the basis of education and not the gender. So the said proportion is justified and may be possible.

Option D: says only about MARRIED woman. Yes it might be a case that heavy work pressure and long hours are not attractive for married woman. But in this case supremo company may or may not be attractive for unmarried woman. This does not address the gender inequality in the argument completely.

helpful?

The company needs to justify that it does not discriminate applicants on the basis of sex. Option E states a fact that indicates that the selection of suitable candidates is based on qualification, not on sex. Hence E is the correct choice.

E is the best possible answer choice.
C cannot be answer because even though number of males are more than females but if females have good qualification. We have to chose them.

Please notice that female percentages are 5% in senior level and about 12% in junior level; so any explanation MUST cover these percentages:

A. male and female executives at the same level have the same qualifications; Irrelevant to explain the huge distance in executive level
B. they pay the same salary to senior men and senior women; Out of scope. there is nothing to do with payment
C. ten times more men than women apply for jobs with the company; Not sufficient, as the choice did not mention org. level; Even if the ratio of men applicants to women were 10:1, in executive level as well, in equivalent situation there must be 1/11th female, which is far away from 5%!
D. the work pressures and long hours make jobs with the company unattractive to married women;Nice try, but partial; what about the rest of women, unmarried ones. what if the job would be most attractive to them?
E. all job applicants who were rejected had fewer qualifications than those accepted; Correct. now we know regardless of sex and org. level, all employed people are more qualified than those who rejected

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________