Which of the following is an area that employers cannot question applicants about?

The reason the statement regarding an arrest for a crime against property is accurate pertains to legal constraints surrounding employment discrimination and privacy. Employers are often restricted from asking about arrests that did not lead to a conviction, as these do not reflect on a person's guilt or suitability for employment. The rationale behind this is that an arrest alone is not evidence of wrongdoing; it may simply indicate that an individual was accused of an offense without any determination of legal responsibility.

In contrast, employers typically can inquire about unsatisfactory interviews, unexplained employment gaps, and past convictions since these may directly relate to an applicant's qualifications and reliability. An unsatisfactory interview may impact an employer's perception of a candidate's fit for the role, while gaps in employment history could raise concerns regarding a candidate's work reliability. Additionally, a conviction for a crime against property is often considered a relevant factor in assessing an applicant's character and may be taken into account, especially for positions that require a high degree of trust.