koolgmat wrote:
Company president: Grievance procedures should allow the grievant and the respondent to select a mediator who will attempt to work out a resolution. Grievances are costly and mediation could help to resolve many of them. However, beginning mediation fairly late in the process, as our human resources department proposes, would be relatively ineffective.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to justify the company president’s criticism of the human resources department’s proposal?
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to justify the company president’s criticism of the human resources department’s proposal?
The company's president concludes that introducing mediation late in the process of grievance-resolving would be relatively ineffective.So he is of the opinion that an early act of mediation would be relatively more effective.
(A) People who file grievances are unreasonable and would resist listening to a mediator.
This shows that the act of mediation might be ineffective for reasons other than initiating the process of mediation late. Thus, this actually weakens the argument.
(B) Many disagreements are already being solved without the intervention of a mediator.
Doesn't help the context at hand.If problems are getting resolved w/o a mediator, why should the question of introducing him early/late come in-to picture.
(C) Adversaries’ positions tend to harden as a dispute wears on, making compromise less likely.
This point,provides support for the fact that if mediation doesn't happen early on, then the chances of getting the problem resolved will go down.
(D) Respondents tend to be supervisors who cannot give in to employees without losing authority.
Irrelevant.
(E) The mediation process itself is likely to cost as much in time and money as the present grievance procedures
This point just compares the magnitude of investment for both the processes with respect to time and money.Doesn't affect the conclusion.
IMO C.