Consultant: Most workers do not have every item they produce judged for quality, but each piece a freelance writer authors is evaluated. ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████████ █████
A Consultant argues freelance writers produce high-quality work because they have each piece of their work evaluated by someone else. This is unlike most other workers whose products are not all individually evaluated.
Having all of one’s work evaluated causes some people to produce better work.
The consultant's statements, if true, ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
A piece authored ██ █ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ████████
The stimulus does not say anything about the “strictness” of an evaluation. Thus, there is no support for the notion that freelance writers are evaluated more strictly even though more of their work is evaluated.
By having every █████ ██ █████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████
The stimulus says that freelance writers produce high-quality work because each piece is evaluated. Thus, it is supported that the process of evaluating causes some workers (freelance writers) to produce high-quality work.
No other workers ███████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████
This is far too strong to support. The stimulus says that freelance writers produce high-quality work, not the highest-quality work.
Only freelance writers ████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ████████
The stimulus does not say that only freelance writers have every item they produce evaluated. It only says that most other professions do not.
Some workers produce ████████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████
While this could be true, nothing in the stimulus says that there are people who produce high-quality work without being evaluated. The stimulus only tells us that freelance writers produce high-quality work.