Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 17:19 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 17:19
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,728
Own Kudos:
810,468
 [5]
Given Kudos: 105,800
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,728
Kudos: 810,468
 [5]
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,728
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 105,800
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,728
Kudos: 810,468
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Swayam123456
Joined: 10 Nov 2022
Last visit: 11 Feb 2023
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 2
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Varuag93
Joined: 25 Dec 2022
Last visit: 12 Sep 2025
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Sustainability
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
Posts: 33
Kudos: 21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Bunuel,

This action in option D is also unfair. Why are we not considering option D? is it time that 2 years are not enough to conclude?
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,728
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 105,800
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,728
Kudos: 810,468
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gauravsirohi93
Hi Bunuel,

This action in option D is also unfair. Why are we not considering option D? is it time that 2 years are not enough to conclude?

Yes, if there were prior violations, and that is the reason why the employee is refusing to advance the other employee, then that would be a valid reason for the behavior.
User avatar
Ram_2001
Joined: 17 Mar 2024
Last visit: 06 Dec 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Given Kudos: 81
Posts: 6
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Quote:
Official Solution:


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


When you read about impartiality in the workplace and family members, you automatically think about nepotism. You think that the correct answer must be something that relates to unfair bias toward a family member, because that is what your mind expects. But when you read through the answer choices, the only one that must violate the policy is the opposite of what you expect: Given the defined policy in the stimulus, if you do not hire one of your siblings and they are each more qualified than ANY OTHER APPLICANT, then that is necessarily unfair. While you might first be drawn to answer choice C or E, you do not know if those actions are unfair.

In answer choice C, for example, the family members may never have done anything that would prompt a firing.

And the family member in choice E might have fully deserved a promotion.

Only choice A, the correct answer, supplies a case that violates the rule. It just so happens, however, that that case is the one you wouldn’t expect to be a problem. You expect for the rule to champion anti-nepotism, and the author of this question uses that tendency against you!


Answer: A
­It might so happen that the company is not hiring anyone, and hence refused to hire any of the siblings even if they are more qualified. I feel option A and option B are equally right and equally wrong. 
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 43,149
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 24,671
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 43,149
Kudos: 83,693
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ram_2001

Quote:
Official Solution:


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


When you read about impartiality in the workplace and family members, you automatically think about nepotism. You think that the correct answer must be something that relates to unfair bias toward a family member, because that is what your mind expects. But when you read through the answer choices, the only one that must violate the policy is the opposite of what you expect: Given the defined policy in the stimulus, if you do not hire one of your siblings and they are each more qualified than ANY OTHER APPLICANT, then that is necessarily unfair. While you might first be drawn to answer choice C or E, you do not know if those actions are unfair.

In answer choice C, for example, the family members may never have done anything that would prompt a firing.

And the family member in choice E might have fully deserved a promotion.

Only choice A, the correct answer, supplies a case that violates the rule. It just so happens, however, that that case is the one you wouldn’t expect to be a problem. You expect for the rule to champion anti-nepotism, and the author of this question uses that tendency against you!


Answer: A
­It might so happen that the company is not hiring anyone, and hence refused to hire any of the siblings even if they are more qualified. I feel option A and option B are equally right and equally wrong. 
­
But then there would not be other applicants since you would not have job applicants without a job. Maybe this is a US vs World difference but I feel a job has to exist in order for there to be applicants and applications. You can't just apply for a job if there is no posting or a job advertised.... However, I think it is easy to fix -  I will clarify that it is for an opening. Will also streamline some grammar in the stem 😇
User avatar
Ishita2000
Joined: 18 Jun 2023
Last visit: 07 Nov 2024
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 12
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Official Solution:


Company Policy: Employees must maintain impartiality, especially in matters involving family. This requirement applies to all job aspects, including hiring, termination, and the quality of customer service provided.

Which of the following behaviors most clearly violates the company's impartiality policy?



A. Refusing to hire any of one’s five siblings for an open position, even though they are each more qualified than any other applicant.
B. Receiving over 100 complaints about the service provided by one’s office and sending a complimentary product to all complainants, 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 they have occasionally missed work and performed poorly, despite no such instances occurring for over two years.
E. Promoting a family member over another employee in the company.


When you consider impartiality in the workplace and its relation to family members, nepotism likely comes to mind. You might expect the correct answer to involve unfair bias towards a family member. However, upon reviewing the answer choices, the actual violation of the policy may be counterintuitive.

According to the defined policy, not hiring a sibling who is more qualified than any other applicant is inherently unfair. Initially, you might be drawn to choices C or E, but their fairness isn't clear without more context.

For example, in choice C, the family members may have never committed actions justifying a firing.

Similarly, the family member in choice E might genuinely deserve the promotion.

Answer choice B, Including one's mother in a blanket policy applied equally to all complainants does not necessarily indicate a violation of impartiality.

Only choice A clearly presents a situation that breaches the policy, though it represents the scenario you might least expect to be problematic. This unexpected twist is a strategic use of common assumptions against the reader, emphasizing the complexity of applying anti-nepotism rules.


Answer: A
­Can you please tell why E is not the answer?
User avatar
Gemmie
Joined: 19 Dec 2021
Last visit: 17 Apr 2026
Posts: 484
Own Kudos:
487
 [1]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Technology, Economics
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83
GPA: 3.55
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83
Posts: 484
Kudos: 487
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Argument Analysis:The company's policy requires impartiality in all job aspects, including hiring, termination, and customer service. Any action that favors or disfavors family members over other employees or applicants would violate this policy.

Evaluation of Answer Choices:

A. Refusing to hire any of one’s five siblings for an open position, even though they are each more qualified than any other applicant.

This clearly violates the company's policy of impartiality because the decision to not hire the siblings is based solely on their family relationship, not on their qualifications. The siblings are the most qualified applicants, yet they are not being hired due to their familial relationship, which is a direct violation of impartiality in hiring practices.

B. Receiving over 100 complaints about the service provided by one’s office and sending a complimentary product to all complainants, including one’s mother.

This action does not violate the impartiality policy because the mother is being treated the same as all other complainants. There is no special treatment involved.

C. Never firing a family member, even though three of one’s siblings work under one’s supervision and authority.

While this does show a potential favoritism and could be seen as a violation, it does not mention any evidence for such "favoritism". The family members could just work and behave well.

D. Repeatedly refusing to advance an employee, claiming that they have occasionally missed work and performed poorly, despite no such instances occurring for over two years.

This does not directly relate to family and thus doesn't specifically address the impartiality policy involving family members.

E. Promoting a family member over another employee in the company.

This violates the policy as well by favoring a family member in promotion decisions, but it is less explicitly detailed than A. Similar to C, it does not mention any evidence for such "favoritism". The family member who got promoted may actually deserve the promotion­
Moderators:
Math Expert
109728 posts
Founder
43149 posts