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.
[spoiler]OA : D[/spoiler]
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.
[spoiler]OA : D[/spoiler]
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
