Angela wells recently applied for a job at spiga, a lounge in paris. having worked in several restaurants and lounges in and across france, she was confident that she would get the job. however, soon after the interview, she was informed that another candidate was offered the job, even though the other candidate had limited experience in comparison to her. angela feels that she was discriminated against. which of the following, if true, would best justify angela's assumption?
a) the woman who was selected over her could speak french fluently. b) angela is a single mother with two young children. c) angela does not have a degree in hospitality management. d) the lounge caters to elite business clientele in paris. e) angela learned of the position through a friend working at the lounge.

 B) Angela is a single mother with two young children.

Explanation: Most appropriate reason amongst all the options can be Angela being a single mother of two young children. Usually a working mother is not found highly flexible with working hours and schedule.This can provoke the employer to become bias and hire the other candidate.

Other options are not as appropriate as option(B) because even if other candidate speaks french fluently, it can make the employer bias but Angela still persist more experience in French and other restaurants so it cannot be a major reason for not hiring her. Hospitality management is not a major need because Angela has good experience in restaurant field.

Angela learning about the job from friend and lounge caters to pick business clientele is not relevant with the mentioned situation in the question. Thus, the appropriate option is option(B).

answer; i believe the correct answer is (a) the correlation between the cause variable and outcome variable is zero;

yes he did writing dots to make the answer