Introduction / Context:
An employment notice reserves to the company the discretion to reject applications without giving reasons at the shortlisting stage. We must identify which premise(s) are necessary for such a clause to be present. Typically, shortlisting aims to limit interviews to suitable candidates to save time and resources; however, this clause itself does not prove impartiality.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Clause: Company may reject applications without reasons during screening.
- Assumption I: Interviewing only eligible/suitable candidates is desirable (hence the need to screen rigorously).
- Assumption II: The company practices impartiality in all functions.
Concept / Approach:
- A shortlisting clause presupposes a need to filter applications to those deemed suitable.
- However, the presence of a discretionary rejection clause does not logically imply impartiality; it could be neutral or even permit subjectivity.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: If it were not desirable to call only suitable candidates, there would be no reason to screen or reserve discretion. Thus I is implicit.Assess II: The clause neither mentions nor guarantees impartiality; it actually asserts unilateral discretion. Therefore II is not implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Remove I: The clause loses operational purpose (screening becomes pointless). Remove II: The clause still stands; impartiality is not a necessary premise.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II — unsupported by the wording.Either / Neither / Both — each mischaracterizes the logical dependence of the clause.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing organizational aspirations (impartiality) with operational necessities (shortlisting desirability).
Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit
Discussion & Comments