PT118.S4.Q25 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sarah’s argument never involves any consideration of what employees would consider to be fair in a regulation, so this is irrelevant.

PrepTest 118 - Section 4 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action