PT102.S3.Q1

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2
Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3
Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4
Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

PrepTest 102 - Section 3 - Question 1

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our management consultant proposes that we reassign staff so that all employees are doing both what they like to do and what they do well. █████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ████████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ███ █ █████████████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████

Summarize Argument

The director of concludes that a consultant’s recommendations for improving productivity by giving employees work that they enjoy and are good at would violate company policy. This is because the consultant says her recommendations will “fully exploit” the company’s workforce resources, and the company’s policy is not to exploit its workers.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter equivocation flaw: the director wrongly takes the term “exploit” to be the same between two different uses. When the consultant talks about “exploiting” the resources of the company, she’s just talking about making the best use of employees’ abilities. The company policy not to “exploit” workers refers to treating employees unfairly, which wouldn’t result from the consultant’s recommendations.

Analysis by AlexandraNash

Show answer

The director's argument for rejecting ███ ██████████ ████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████

failing to distinguish ███ ████████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ████

The director doesn’t distinguish between two uses of “exploit” that have different meanings in their respective contexts. The director wrongly takes the consultant’s use of “exploit” (optimize resources) to be the same as the company policy’s use of “exploit” (treat unfairly).

attempting to defend ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███

The director doesn’t try to defend any action in this argument. There also isn’t any example discussed of an action that is frequently carried out.

defining a term ██ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███████

The director doesn’t define any terms here. In fact, the flaw in the director’s argument is a failure to recognize two distinct definitions of the same term, “exploit”.

drawing a conclusion ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████

The director concludes that the consultant’s recommendation would violate company policy, which is not a premise used earlier in the argument.

calling something by █ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████ █████

This argument doesn’t deal with offensive terminology, and the director doesn’t replace any usual terms with different ones.

Difficulty

Question

93% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 124

135

75% 146

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stems that ask us to articulate a flaw in the stimulus' argument, either in abstract terms or by pointing out a weakness.

Stimulus Tags

Equivocation

Arguments that use a single term to mean two substantially different things, resulting in misleading or invalid reasoning.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

93%

165

164

157

152

155

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!