<p>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
has been investigating the treatment of women in a major
financial services firm since a former executive alleged
Line that she had been underpaid, excluded from outings with
5 clients, and denied promotion because of her gender. If
the commission sues the firm, it would be a rare case of
the federal governments taking up the cause of a highly
compensated professional in a workplace dispute.</p>
<p>12 It can be inferred that the commission views the alleged treatment of the former executive as
(A) possibly representative of a general pattern
(B) clearly showing the need for legal reform
(C) indicative of declining business ethics
(D) posing a sensitive political dilemma
(E) likely to prove difficult to verify</p>
<p>Can someone please tell me the correct answer, and the reason you chose that answer.
I know the answer, but many times when someone asks a question, repliers are more biased toward the correct answer because they know it is.
So, if someone knows the answer, please say it, and tell me why you chose it. </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>I would say it is A. Here’s my reasoning:</p>
<p>It can’t be C, D, or E because D and E don’t make sense with the passage (why would the EOC take up a case they think will be difficult to verify?). It can’t be C because the passage implies that usually the Feds dont care about workplace disputes such as this, so why would they suddenly care about this case? It can’t be D for the same reason.</p>
<p>Now, that leaves A and B. There isn’t much evidence for B because the EOC has been “investigating,” not HOUNDING after the corporation, just investigating. As in the EOC has been cautiously checking it out, not believing that this is “clear evidence for legal reform.”</p>
<p>So that leaves A, and thats my answer. Also here’s some evidence for A: It says “investigating the treatment of women in a major financial services firm” not “a woman,” but “women,” as in there may be more then case of this, as in they think there might be a pattern of discrimination.</p>
<p>Now tell me, whats the right answer? Im curious now.</p>
<p>I believe it’s A. The Commision has been investigating the treatment SINCE so on and so forth. The key is since, which shows that they believe it has been happening since the case of the former executive. Though B is possible this really has nothing to do with clear evidence of legal reform. It’s more business reform. This has nothing to do with declining business ethics since it has been happening for some time and hasn’t necessarily gotten worse. This isn’t really a dilemma, what are they deciding between? And E is not stated anywhere and probably wouldn’t be true since they are investigating it they probably believe they can verify it. Process of elimination can be a beautiful thing.</p>
<p>NWskier has good points too. There are a couple of ways to eliminate the choices.</p>
<p>Yeah, the correct answer is A. </p>
<p>Thanks NWskier and satanxiety.</p>