PrepTest 45, Section 3, Question 25
Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. For instance, the regulations state that a staff member who is performing unsatisfactorily will face dismissal, but they fail to define unsatisfactory performance. Thus, some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.
Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. For instance, the regulations state that a staff member who is performing unsatisfactorily will face dismissal, but they fail to define unsatisfactory performance. Thus, some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.
Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. For instance, the regulations state that a staff member who is performing unsatisfactorily will face dismissal, but they fail to define unsatisfactory performance. Thus, some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.
Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. For instance, the regulations state that a staff member who is performing unsatisfactorily will face dismissal, but they fail to define unsatisfactory performance. Thus, some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.
Which one of the following generalizations, if applicable to Sarah's company, most helps to justify her reasoning?
Performance that falls only somewhat below expectations results in disciplinary measures short of dismissal.
Interpreting regulations is a prerogative that belongs solely to supervisors.
A vague regulation can be used to make those subject to it answer for their performance.
A vague regulation can be used to keep those subject to it in subordinate positions.
Employees usually consider specific regulations to be fairer than vague regulations.
Explanations
Don't get hung up on this awkwardly worded question stem. This is just a run of the mill Principle question.
That is, we need an answer choice that—were it true at Sarah's company—would make her conclusion more likely.
And what does Sarah conclude? That, because her company's staff regs are vague and tough to parse, and because unsatisfactory work will get you fired, that some people end up getting fired because they disagree with their supervisors.
So what would help Sarah's case? I'm predicting something like, "Supervisors get to assess regulations and performance, but their subordinates don't."
Let's see.
No chance. The passage only address circumstances leading to dismissal, not what happens when employee performance flirts with the line between satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
Bingo, this does it. If the only people allowed to interpret company regs are the supervisors, and if the supervisors get to claim employees are performing unsatisfactorily as a result, then it would make sense that the occasional dispute leads to a subordinate or two getting fired.
Nah, this is a trap. There's justification for this idea in the passage, but it doesn't help Sarah's conclusion—the last sentence. In other words, this is wrong because it doesn't help me understand why conflicting personal views lead to subordinates getting fired.
Nope. Similar to C, we aren't concerned with whether subordinates face other forms of reprisal, just whether or not they end up getting fired.
No way. I'm sure this is true, but subordinates' preferences regarding rule specificity have no bearing on the strength of Sarah's conclusion.
0 Comments