Q: 17
CASE STUDY
A premier payroll services company that employs thousands of people globally, is embarking on a
new hiring campaign and wants to implement policies and procedures to identify and retain the best
talent. The new talent will help the company's product team expand its payroll offerings to
companies in the healthcare and transportation sectors, including in Asia.
It has become time consuming and expensive for HR to review all resumes, and they are concerned
that human reviewers might be susceptible to bias.
To address these concerns, the company is considering using a third-party Al tool to screen resumes
and assist with hiring. They have been talking to several vendors about possibly obtaining a third-
party Al-enabled hiring solution, as long as it would achieve its goals and comply with all applicable
laws.
The organization has a large procurement team that is responsible for the contracting of technology
solutions. One of the procurement team's goals is to reduce costs, and it often prefers lower-cost
solutions. Others within the company deploy technology solutions into the organization’s operations
in a responsible, cost-effective manner.
The organization is aware of the risks presented by Al hiring tools and wants to mitigate them. It also
questions how best to organize and train its existing personnel to use the Al hiring tool responsibly.
Their concerns are heightened by the fact that relevant laws vary across jurisdictions and continue to
change.
All of the following are potential negative consequences created by using the AI tool to help make
hiring decisions EXCEPT?
Options
Discussion
Pretty sure this matches examples from the official guide. B is the odd one out, since improving candidate quality is their entire purpose-not a negative. If anyone sees a trick, let me know.
B , since "candidate quality" isn't a negative consequence like automation bias or privacy stuff. Trap for picking D.
Its B
B is the only one that's actually a benefit, not a risk, so that fits as the exception here. Nice clear wording in this question, makes it easy to spot that candidate quality is what they're hoping to improve! If anyone disagrees let me know but pretty sure it's B.
Be respectful. No spam.
