Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. ███ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████████
██████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███████████
The regulator concludes that it was impossible to attract enough qualified investigators. As support, the regulator says that the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that they did not have 500 qualified applicants.
The regulator responds to the legislator’s accusation that the regulation agency purposely limited hiring by highlighting new information that impacts the hiring process. The information raised by the regulator about the low starting salaries provides an alternate explanation that weakens the legislator’s argument. The new information suggests that it was the low salaries, rather than malice by the regulators, that explains the fact that no more than 400 regulators were hired.
The regulator responds to the ████████████ █████████ ██
shifting the blame ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████
The regulator does not shift blame for the sandals. The regulator does not discuss who is responsible for the scandals referenced by the legislator.
providing information that ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████
The regulator provides new information about the low starting salaries for the positions that challenges the legislator’s conclusion that the low hiring numbers were a result of the regulator’s desire to hide the scandals.
claiming that compliance ████ ███ █████████████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████████
The regulator does not address what would have happened if the agency actually had hired 500 investigators. The regulator doesn’t say whether or not that would have been a sufficient response.
rephrasing the legislator's ██████████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
The legislator’s conclusion is that the regulator purposely limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed; the regulator does not rephrase this conclusion at all. The regulator gives a different conclusion.
showing that the ████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████████████
The regulator does not show that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory; the regulator raises new information that weakens the legislator’s argument.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic