PrepTest 112, Section 1, Question 5
Company policy: An employee of our company must(31 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- Arefusing to hire(16 more words not shown)
- Breceiving over a(21 more words not shown)
- Cnever firing a(14 more words not shown)
- Drepeatedly refusing to(28 more words not shown)
- Epromoting a family(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Treating your family impartially means neither favoring them nor penalizing them for being family.
My first thought is the familiar problem of favoritism: hiring a relative because of the relationship or giving a relative special customer service. But the policy doesn't say relatives must never be hired or helped. It says the relationship shouldn't distort how they are treated. A relative can deserve good treatment for the same reasons as anyone else.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for the clearest violation. I'd initially expect an example of undeserved favorable treatment, but worse treatment can violate the rule as well. We need enough information to see the unfair difference. Merely learning that someone hired, promoted or retained a relative won't establish it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Each sibling is more qualified than every other applicant, yet the employee refuses to hire any of them. The comparison supplies what we need: the relatives are being passed over despite their stronger qualifications. That is the clearest departure from an impartial hiring decision.
The direction is the surprising part. I initially expected favoritism, but this is unfavorable treatment. The policy doesn't require an employee to reject relatives automatically; doing that can make family status an unfair disadvantage. Impartiality runs both ways.
- B
Everyone who complains receives the product, including the employee's mother. She gets the same response as other customers in the same situation. Giving her the product doesn't show favoritism, and excluding her just because she is family would not be a more impartial response.
- C
Perhaps these siblings have never given the employee a reason to fire them. Perhaps the employee never fires anyone. The choice doesn't compare their work or treatment with that of other employees. Keeping relatives on staff is not, by itself, evidence that the employee is protecting them unfairly.
- D
The policy requires impartiality throughout the job, so this choice isn't irrelevant merely because it doesn't mention family. But we still don't know that the employee applies a different standard to this worker than to others. Earlier attendance and performance problems might remain a reason to withhold advancement under a rule applied consistently. The two-year gap alone doesn't establish partial treatment.
- E
The family member might be the better candidate for promotion. E doesn't compare qualifications or say the relationship drove the decision. A gives us a clear qualification comparison that makes the refusal suspect; E gives only the result of a promotion decision. The result alone doesn't establish that the rule was violated.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.