Company policy: An employee of our company must be impartial, particularly when dealing with family members. This o...
DerekJuly 8, 2014
Why A?
First of all it says "fan members" not "family members" but I think after you read it a couple times you understand it's supposed to say family.
Anyways
An employee of the company must be impartial (treating others fair and just), with this quality extending to family members. Why would the answer not be D when this action is lying about another person's job quality/habits?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
As you have correctly pointed out, the policy is about "family members." An employee of the company must be impartial when dealing with family members. Answer choice (D) is not about family members. Rather, it is about a general employee who wants his position to be advanced.
Answer choice (A) is the correct answer. Refusing to hire a sibling even though they are more qualified than any other applicant is not being impartial. If they are more qualified, they should be hired.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any more questions.
DerekJuly 22, 2014
But it is not Only about family members. The policy is for an employee to be impartial. The comma separates the policy and the particular aspect of family members. The extension of the policy, when dealing with hiring practices, would cover the promotion/advancement. I guess I am eternally confused with the fact that being unfair and lying about an employee's record to justify non-advancement would directly relate to being an impartial employee.
NazJuly 23, 2014
The policy is that an employee of the company must be impartial, PARTICULARLY when dealing with family members. Therefore, though the policy does not only touch upon dealings with family members, it places an emphasis on it.
Answer choice (D) states: "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."
This is not necessarily unfair and it does not necessarily constitute lying. Though we know that "no such instances have occurred for over two years," that does not mean that it didn't happen once in a while before that time.
What if this employee is the only one who has ever not shown up to work and the only one who has ever presented sloppy work? If everyone else had an immaculate record, then even though this employee hasn't skipped work or had sloppy work for over two years, it is still on his record. Thus, others who had perfect records could be more deserving of being advanced.
Answer choice (A) states: "refusing to hire any of one's five siblings, even though they are each more qualified than any other applicant."
Answer choice (A) explicitly tells us that any of the siblings is more qualified than any one else. Thus, it would not be impartial to refuse to hire one of the siblings, since they are clearly the best applicants available.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any more questions.
DerekJuly 29, 2014
That makes sense, thank you guys for all the help :)
AlexJanuary 29, 2017
@lsatmax So I can see why A is correct. Please explain why not C or E. Is it because they do not give context of hiring or firing practice? Thank you.
MehranFebruary 1, 2017
@Alex exactly! To violate this policy, an employee would fail to be impartial, particularly when dealing with family members.
Since we do not have any context for (C) or (E), we cannot say that this principle was violated.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
HaylyeDecember 21, 2017
The book still says "fan" members instead of family.
josepablosalasJuly 8, 2018
The book has not been changed.
iris.diaz823July 5, 2020
I find it pretty embarrassing that the book has this typo that says "fan members" instead of family members....
