Question

An economist concluded that Kregg Company deliberately discriminated against
people with a history of union affiliation in hiring workers for its new plant. The
economist's evidence is that, of the 1,500 people hired to work at the new plant,
only 100 had ever belonged to a labor union, whereas in Kregg Company's older
plants, a much higher proportion of workers have a history of union affiliation. Which of the following is an assumption on which the economist's argument
depends?

• A. \( \text{No hired union affiliates were organizers.} \)
• B. \( \text{Applicants weren’t asked about union history.} \)
• C. \( \text{Some competitors’ workforce is mostly union.} \)
• D. \( \text{Company prefers no unions for lower costs.} \)
• E. \( \text{Some union affiliates were in the candidate pool.} \)

Hint:

Identify the assumption about candidate pool.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Argument: Low union hires at new plant vs. older plants suggests discrimination.
Step 2: Assumes qualified union affiliates were available.
Step 3: (E) assumes they were in the pool, supporting the conclusion.
Step 4: Others (A-D) don’t address candidate availability.