When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources at

Question

When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources at Sarpedon Inc., the Human Resources department cannot always determine whether there was just cause for the complaint. This is usually due to insufficient evidence provided by the claimant. Nevertheless, Sarpedon will sometimes dismiss an employee because of such a complaint, even if unsubstantiated.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) Many Sarpedon employees accused of any wrongdoing contest the charge, claiming their own innocence, because they are familiar with Human Resources policy.

(B) In certain kinds of harassment, victims are reluctant to press charges, for fear of reprisals or unfavorable judgments from other colleagues.

(C) It is possible that an unsubstantiated complaint could be unfairly held against the employee that it implicates.

(D) In a 1-on-1 conflict in which the only two employees involved give conflicting view of each other's words and actions, managers have to make a judgment at their own discretion.

(E) Many of the employees dismissed from Sarpedon would have substantial grounds for a lawsuit concerning their dismissal because of this Human Resources policy.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

MohdWaaz2905 · Answer

The correct answer is:

(C) It is possible that an unsubstantiated complaint could be unfairly held against the employee that it implicates.

This conclusion can be drawn from the information provided. The passage states that Sarpedon Inc. sometimes dismisses employees based on complaints even if those complaints are unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. This means that an employee could be dismissed unfairly if the complaint against them lacks sufficient proof.

Posted from my mobile device

Bismuth83 · Answer

1. We are given a passage and asked  which statement can be used the best as a conclusion . Let's find such a statement:

2.  Many Sarpedon employees accused of any wrongdoing contest the charge, claiming their own innocence, because they are familiar with Human Resources policy.  This option brings in new information about employees contesting charges, which isn't mentioned in the passage, so it's speculative.   So, this statement doesn't work.

3.  In certain kinds of harassment, victims are reluctant to press charges, for fear of reprisals or unfavorable judgments from other colleagues.  The passage doesn't discuss the reasons why victims may or may not press charges, making this option irrelevant.   So, this statement doesn't work.

4.  It is possible that an unsubstantiated complaint could be unfairly held against the employee that it implicates.  Here, it suggests that employees can be dismissed even if a complaint lacks sufficient evidence.   So, this statement does work.

5.  In a 1-on-1 conflict in which the only two employees involved give conflicting view of each other's words and actions, managers have to make a judgment at their own discretion.  The text doesn’t talk about how managers handle conflicts directly, so this is outside the scope of what's provided.   So, this statement doesn't work.

6.  Many of the employees dismissed from Sarpedon would have substantial grounds for a lawsuit concerning their dismissal because of this Human Resources policy.  This option goes beyond the given information because the passage doesn't mention lawsuits or legal actions.   So, this statement doesn't work.

Nikhil17bhatt · Answer

IMO C

Let's analyze each option:

(A) Many Sarpedon employees accused of any wrongdoing contest the charge, claiming their own innocence, because they are familiar with Human Resources policy.

This option suggests a behavior pattern among employees but does not directly follow from the information provided. The passage does not provide evidence about employees' reactions to accusations or their familiarity with HR policy.
(B) In certain kinds of harassment, victims are reluctant to press charges, for fear of reprisals or unfavorable judgments from other colleagues.

This option introduces a new idea about victims' reluctance to press charges, which is not directly addressed in the passage. The passage focuses on the HR department's difficulty in determining just cause due to insufficient evidence, not on victims' reluctance.
(C) It is possible that an unsubstantiated complaint could be unfairly held against the employee that it implicates.

This option directly aligns with the information provided. The passage states that Sarpedon sometimes dismisses employees based on unsubstantiated complaints, implying that such complaints could unfairly impact the implicated employee.
(D) In a 1-on-1 conflict in which the only two employees involved give conflicting view of each other's words and actions, managers have to make a judgment at their own discretion.

This option suggests a specific scenario and decision-making process, which is not explicitly covered in the passage. The passage does not detail how managers handle conflicting views in 1-on-1 conflicts.
(E) Many of the employees dismissed from Sarpedon would have substantial grounds for a lawsuit concerning their dismissal because of this Human Resources policy.

This option implies legal grounds for lawsuits, which is not directly supported by the passage. The passage does not provide information about the legal implications or the likelihood of lawsuits.
Given the analysis, the most appropriate conclusion that can be drawn from the information provided is:

(C) It is possible that an unsubstantiated complaint could be unfairly held against the employee that it implicates.

This conclusion is directly supported by the passage, which mentions that Sarpedon sometimes dismisses employees based on unsubstantiated complaints.

Krunaal · Answer

A.  Incorrect  because it adds assumptions not supported by the passage.

B.  Incorrect  as it is not directly related to the information provided.

C. The passage states that employees are sometimes dismissed based on unsubstantiated complaints, which means it is indeed possible that such a complaint could unfairly affect the employee.  Correct, as this is a logical conclusion drawn from the information provided.

D.  Incorrect  because it introduces a new scenario not discussed in the passage.

E.  Incorrect  as it goes beyond the information given.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

We know some proportion of HR complaints lack sufficient evidence to establish the complaint with proof. We don't know what proportion of the complaints are like this: it might be 0.01% or 99%, we don't know. Victims sometimes give less than complete info—we don't know why. We know that HR policy has left open the possibility of dismissing someone even though the complaint has not been substantiated, but we don't know whether this has ever happened; if it has happened, we don't know how frequent it might have been.

The credited answer is (C). We don't know what "held against" might mean—perhaps a written warning or a stern disciplinary talk by one's superior—but whatever it is, it may go as far to include outright dismissal. If Sarpedon is willing to dismiss someone, then it stands to reason that they might perform some lesser disciplinary action, "holding" something "against" someone, even though that person was innocent. This is a possibility left open by their policy. Choice (C) is the best answer.

As for (A), we can't conclude that the majority of employees dismissed were so treated because of unsubstantiated complaints. That could be true, or it could be that only one person or even no one was dismissed because of unsubstantiated complaints, and most everybody else was dismissed for something clear and unambiguous and documented. For this reason, we can't conclude either (A) or (E), because we have no idea where this scenario accounts for the majority of dismissals or only a tiny fraction.

Choice (B) would give us some insight into why a victim of harassment might not want to follow through completely with a harassment complaint. It helps to explain or clarify, but it is not a conclusion that we can draw from the argument.

Similarly, choice (D) paints a picture of a scenario, such as a "he-said-she-said" conflict, in which a manager might make a judgment call that doesn't accord with what actually happened. Like (B), this helps to explain how a detail might play out, but it is not a conclusion we can draw from the argument.

When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources at

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources at

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards