Self-study
Sarah: Support Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. ███ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ █ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████████ ████████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████████████
Summary
Sarah says that some staff at her company might be dismissed just because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors. Why? Because the company’s staff review regulations are vague and hard to interpret. Specifically, the regulations say that staff members can be dismissed due to unsatisfactory performance, but don’t define unsatisfactory performance.
Notable Assumptions
Sarah points out some problems with her company’s regulations, but jumps from there to concluding that staff might be dismissed just due to personal views conflicting with those of their supervisors.
Sarah must be assuming that vague regulations about when staff can be dismissed might be interpreted in line with supervisors’ personal bias. We need a generalization that affirms this idea.
25.
Which one of the following ████████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
a
Performance that falls ████ ████████ █████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████
This still doesn’t explain how staff might be dismissed merely due to a personal conflict of views with their supervisors, so doesn’t justify Sarah’s reasoning.
b
Interpreting regulations is █ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████████
This means that supervisors have the power to exploit vagueness in the regulations to the detriment of employees with whom they disagree. This affirms Sarah’s assumed link between vague regulations and supervisors enacting bias, and so supports her argument.
c
A vague regulation ███ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████████████
Sarah’s argument isn’t about whether staff will answer for their performance, but rather about whether staff might be unjustly dismissed. This isn’t relevant.
d
A vague regulation ███ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████████
Sarah isn’t discussing the possibility of staff being kept in subordinate positions, she’s discussing the possibility of unjust dismissal. This would support a different conclusion, not Sarah’s actual conclusion.
e
Employees usually consider ████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ████████████
Sarah’s argument never involves any consideration of what employees would consider to be fair in a regulation, so this is irrelevant.