Self-study
Ted, a senior employee, believes he is underpaid and attempts to compensate by routinely keeping short hours, though it is obvious to everyone that Support he still makes some valuable, unique, and perhaps irreplaceable contributions. ████████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██ █████████
Summary
Tatiana concludes that she should not request that Ted be replaced.
Why?
Because Ted makes some valuable, unique, and possibly irreplaceable contributions.
Notable Assumptions
We want to form a bridge to get from the premise to the conclusion:
If someone makes valuable, unique, and possibly irreplaceable contributions, then you should not ask for that person to be replaced.
9.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████████
a
Supervisors should request ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████
(A) gets us from the premise to the conclusion. “Only if” introduces a necessary condition. So (A), restated, means that if a supervisor does NOT know that all the work performed by an employee can be performed equally well by another employee, then the supervisor should NOT request the employee to be replaced. We know from the premise that Ted performs some “unique” work that is “possibly irreplaceable.” This establishes that Tatiana doesn’t know with certainty that she can replace Ted’s work with another employee. (A), then, would justify the decision not to request that Ted be replaced.
b
Employers should compensate ███ █████ █████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████████ ████ █████
Leads to wrong conclusion. We’re trying to support the decision not to request Ted be replaced. (B) helps us reach a conclusion about how employers should compensate employees.
c
Only someone with ███████ █████████ ████ █ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (C) would help us conclude that someone doesn’t have the authority to decide whether Ted should be replaced. But we’re trying to support the conclusion that there shouldn’t be a request that he be replaced. Whether someone has the authority to replace Ted is a separate issue.
d
Workers in a ████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██████████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (D) would help us conclude that workers should feel responsible for certain work. But we’re trying to prove that Ted shouldn’t be requested to be replaced.
e
An employee's contributions ██ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ █ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████
Not strong enough. (E) establishes that when measuring an employee’s contributions, we have to take into account more than just the time that person works. That doesn’t help us prove that Tatiana shouldn’t ask for Ted to be replaced. (Don’t get confused about what we’re trying to prove. We’re not trying to prove that Ted makes meaningful contributions despite his short working hours.)