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.
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.
OA C
Source: Veritas Prep
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
In most businesses, refusing to employ someone with a crimin
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
OPTION A - INCORRECT
This doesn't weaken the argument because if the LMN corporation hired several people with criminal record between 5 to 10 years ago, it means they are not in violation of the federal hiring regulations.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
This cannot weaken the argument because the corporation has been exempted from hiring regulations for security reasons
OPTION C - CORRECT
This option provides a weakness to the argument because it provides the evidence to show that the corporation has violated the hiring regulations which is the awareness of an applicants criminal record
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The facts that applicants with criminal records were refused employment at LMN is well stated in the argument, and then finding a new one at a similar business doesn't weaken the argument
OPTION E - INCORRECT
Well, this doesn't go against or weaken the argument because the years in question is five (5) which means that if the hiring regulations was put in place 6 years ago, it is still in range of the proposed years.
This doesn't weaken the argument because if the LMN corporation hired several people with criminal record between 5 to 10 years ago, it means they are not in violation of the federal hiring regulations.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
This cannot weaken the argument because the corporation has been exempted from hiring regulations for security reasons
OPTION C - CORRECT
This option provides a weakness to the argument because it provides the evidence to show that the corporation has violated the hiring regulations which is the awareness of an applicants criminal record
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The facts that applicants with criminal records were refused employment at LMN is well stated in the argument, and then finding a new one at a similar business doesn't weaken the argument
OPTION E - INCORRECT
Well, this doesn't go against or weaken the argument because the years in question is five (5) which means that if the hiring regulations was put in place 6 years ago, it is still in range of the proposed years.
