PT107.S1.Q19 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 2 · 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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The shipping manager claims that he is not responsible for the facility opening late, because the contractor didn’t finish on time. He is to blame, however, because he knew the contractor typically gets delayed and should have planned for that possibility.

The argument moves from the fact that the shipping manager was aware of the contractor’s delay to the fact that he was to blame for not planning accordingly. It doesn’t explicitly state, however, why he had a responsibility to prepare for somebody else’s failings. We’re looking for some principle that justifies the fact that the manager ought to have done something to prepare for the contractor’s delay, and is therefore to blame for not doing so.

This explains why the manager is to blame - he should have taken the delay into account, and because he didn’t, the lost business was partially his fault.

Leads to the wrong conclusion. If this were the case, then it wouldn’t be the manager’s fault, as he should have been able to depend on the contractors to finish on time.

This doesn’t reflect the arbitrator’s reason for blaming the manager. The arbitrator assigns blame because the manager failed to plan for the delay, not because the manager failed to prevent the delay. The arbitrator doesn’t suggest that the manager should have done anything to make the contractors work faster.

The premises don’t trigger this principle for two reasons. First, nothing suggests the shipping manager was directly supervising the contractors. Second, this principle is about blaming managers for other people’s mistakes. But is a delay considered a “mistake”? It’s unclear.

Two problems. First, this says that all blame should be put on the manager. But the arbitrator argues that both the manager and the contractor share blame. Second, this principle is triggered by a project’s failure. But the project in the stimulus didn’t fail—it just suffered a costly delay.

PrepTest 107 - Section 1 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action