Step 1: Understanding the argument.
The company believes that asking whether an applicant has stolen from a previous employer will help them identify dishonest people.
Step 2: Analyzing the options.
- (A) It is illegal to ask people if they have ever committed a crime: This option doesn't directly address the flaw in the argument but points to a legal issue.
- (B) People who have stolen from a former employer are unlikely to admit this to a prospective new employer: This is the flaw in the argument. If dishonest people are not likely to admit their actions, then the question won't effectively identify dishonest individuals.
- (C) Just because someone has never stolen before doesn't mean he or she might not steal in the future: This does not weaken the argument, as it addresses future actions rather than the question's effectiveness.
- (D) Just because someone has stolen in the past doesn't mean he or she will steal again: This also does not weaken the argument but points to the behavior of a person after a past action.
- (E) People lie when they really want a job: This does not weaken the argument significantly as it is a general statement, not directly related to the question's effectiveness.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (B) directly addresses the flaw in the argument because it shows that the question will not reliably identify dishonest applicants.
Disregard commonly known facts. Which conclusion would follow on the basis of given statements only?
Statement (I): Some bottles are car. Some cars are cycle.
Conclusion: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{[(I)] Some bottles are cycle is a possibility.} \\ \bullet & \text{[(II)] All bottles are cycle.} \\ \end{array}\]
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)