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.




