BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moderator
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:29 pm
Followed by:6 members

When complaints against staff are brought to Human Resources

by BTGmoderatorRO » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:25 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.
OA is c

Can anyone figure out what is wrong with option B and C?
Thanks
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:15 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Let's start with the correct option which is OPTION C
In option c, the possibility of an uncorroborated claim of wrongdoing getting unfair, biased and prejudicial treatment against an employee indicted is higher that it's not happening.

For other options, let's see why they are wrong
Option A: The statement does not state in specifics that three indeed exists any protest, contest nor was there an opposition to the allegations.
The complaints leveled against the employees already put them at a disadvantage and stiffens their ability to prove their innocence.

Option B: The statement does not just refer to employees, it also infers that members of the public could open a case against them with the Human Resources Department. In which case, identity remains anonymous whilst been speculative, reprisals would not suffice here because the corporation could lay-of workers in absentia, with uncorroborated claims by merely establishing a case against them.

Option D: This infers a conflicting defense statements would not sway the decisions of the Judges herein, who would rely majorly on the power of discretion and not that of attorney.

Option E: 'cannot always determine whether there was just cause for the complaint.' According to the writer, not exactly all innocent employees are adjudged guilty always. There have existed situations where cases have been fairly conducted and decided
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1