|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Updated on: 03 Oct 2023, 01:53
Originally posted by Sajjad1994 on 11 Jan 2021, 09:00.
Last edited by BottomJee on 03 Oct 2023, 01:53, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by BottomJee on 03 Oct 2023, 01:53, edited 2 times in total.
Manhattan Review;Moved to new forum
Kudos
Bookmarks
Colleague 1’s
argument: Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account. Colleague 2’s
argument: Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
argument: Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account. Colleague 2’s
argument: Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (02:29) correct
42%
(02:51)
wrong
based on 885
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Source: Manhattan Review
Colleague 1: “Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to ask for charitable donations. For example, a parent cannot ask fellow employees to purchase candy that the child’s school is selling as a fundraiser. Or someone participating in a race for charity cannot collect pledges from colleagues. But co-workers are often friends as well as colleagues. Did our employer really intend to forbid friends from helping one another?”Colleague 2: “Our employer has the best interests of the company in mind when creating these restrictions. If an employee feels pressured to contribute when she doesn’t want to, that can create tension and adversely affect the working environment. Even if the two people in question are friends, such negative pressure can harm the professional relationship. Ultimately, the productivity of a team or an entire division could be lowered.”
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 1 develops her objection to the company’s policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument. Select only two statements, one per column.
|
Colleague 1’s argument |
Colleague 2’s argument |
|
| Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur. | ||
| Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others. | ||
| Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account. | ||
| Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information. | ||
| Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else. | ||
| Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Colleague 1’s
argument: Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account. Colleague 2’s
argument: Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
argument: Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account. Colleague 2’s
argument: Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
12 Jan 2021, 09:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
Colleague 1 explains a particular company policy and offers two examples to illustrate that policy. She then raises a particular consideration (co-workers can be friends as well as colleagues) and questions whether the company really thought this policy through. Colleague 2 responds by demonstrating that the policy in question is designed to prevent certain negative outcomes that can occur regardless of whether the co-workers in question are also friends.
(A) CORRECT for Column 2. Colleague 2 does acknowledge that co-workers can be friends, but she argues that the policy can still prevent possible negative outcomes that could hurt the company, even when the employees in question are friends.
(B) Colleague 1 does not argue against evidence presented in the office policy; rather, she brings up a new piece of information that she believes changes the situation (that colleagues can be friends as well as co-workers). Colleague 2 does disagree with Colleague 1’s overall view, but not by arguing against the assertion that colleagues can be friends. Rather, Colleague 2 asserts that there can be negative consequences even when two people are friends.
(C) CORRECT for Column 1. Colleague 1 introduces a new consideration: that colleagues can be friends as well as co-workers. Her final question indicates that she believes the employer may not have taken this consideration into account when drawing up the policy.
(D) Colleague 1 does not argue that the company’s policy is based upon faulty information, just that the company may not have considered the friendship angle. Colleague 2 actually acknowledges Colleague 1’s point that co-workers may be friends, so Colleague 2 does not imply that Colleague 1’s information is faulty.
(E) Colleague 1 does cite new information (that co-workers can be friends), but this information does not specifically refute evidence presented by the company or in the office policy. Colleague 2 does not refute Colleague 1’s claims about friendship; rather, Colleague 2 explains how the policy will protect the company even when two co-workers are friends.
(F) Colleague 1 does not cite or address any data the company may have used in developing its policy. In addition, Colleague 1 does not cite any data to support her own point of view, so Colleague 2 cannot have questioned the validity of data that does not exist.
Column 1: The correct answer is (A).
Column 2: The correct answer is (C).
Colleague 1 explains a particular company policy and offers two examples to illustrate that policy. She then raises a particular consideration (co-workers can be friends as well as colleagues) and questions whether the company really thought this policy through. Colleague 2 responds by demonstrating that the policy in question is designed to prevent certain negative outcomes that can occur regardless of whether the co-workers in question are also friends.
(A) CORRECT for Column 2. Colleague 2 does acknowledge that co-workers can be friends, but she argues that the policy can still prevent possible negative outcomes that could hurt the company, even when the employees in question are friends.
(B) Colleague 1 does not argue against evidence presented in the office policy; rather, she brings up a new piece of information that she believes changes the situation (that colleagues can be friends as well as co-workers). Colleague 2 does disagree with Colleague 1’s overall view, but not by arguing against the assertion that colleagues can be friends. Rather, Colleague 2 asserts that there can be negative consequences even when two people are friends.
(C) CORRECT for Column 1. Colleague 1 introduces a new consideration: that colleagues can be friends as well as co-workers. Her final question indicates that she believes the employer may not have taken this consideration into account when drawing up the policy.
(D) Colleague 1 does not argue that the company’s policy is based upon faulty information, just that the company may not have considered the friendship angle. Colleague 2 actually acknowledges Colleague 1’s point that co-workers may be friends, so Colleague 2 does not imply that Colleague 1’s information is faulty.
(E) Colleague 1 does cite new information (that co-workers can be friends), but this information does not specifically refute evidence presented by the company or in the office policy. Colleague 2 does not refute Colleague 1’s claims about friendship; rather, Colleague 2 explains how the policy will protect the company even when two co-workers are friends.
(F) Colleague 1 does not cite or address any data the company may have used in developing its policy. In addition, Colleague 1 does not cite any data to support her own point of view, so Colleague 2 cannot have questioned the validity of data that does not exist.
Column 1: The correct answer is (A).
Column 2: The correct answer is (C).
General Discussion
11 Jan 2021, 21:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Colleague 1 : Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to ask for charitable donations. But co-workers are often friends as well as colleagues. Did our employer really intend to forbid friends from helping one another?
Colleague 2 : Even if the two people are friends, the negative pressure can harm the professional relationship. Ultimately, the productivity of a team or an entire division could be lowered.
In this argument, Collegue 2 does not question the validity of the information that co-workers may not be friends or the employees are restricted to approach for the donation. Colleague 2 shifts the perspective from " helping friends" to "interest of the company".
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 1 develops her objection to the company’s policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument. Select only two statements, one per column.
Colleague 1 develops her objection by :
Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
There is no information cited by others. Collegue 1 herself brings the information to initiate the argument.
Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others
There is no information cited by others. Collegue 1 herself brings the information to initiate the argument.
Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account
Correct. Collegue 1 believes that employer has not considered the idea that the restriction forbids the friends to help each other.
Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information
No one questions the validity of the information.
Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else
There is no information cited by others.
Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view
No one questions the validity of the information.
Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument by :
Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur
Correct.Colleague 2 acknowledges the information cited by collegue 2, but changes the perception to look into.
Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account
The consideration that something is not taken into account is raised by Collegue 1. Colleague 2 tries to fill the gap.
Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in
Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Hence :
Colleague 1 develops her objection by - Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account.
Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument by - Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
Colleague 2 : Even if the two people are friends, the negative pressure can harm the professional relationship. Ultimately, the productivity of a team or an entire division could be lowered.
In this argument, Collegue 2 does not question the validity of the information that co-workers may not be friends or the employees are restricted to approach for the donation. Colleague 2 shifts the perspective from " helping friends" to "interest of the company".
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 1 develops her objection to the company’s policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument. Select only two statements, one per column.
Colleague 1 develops her objection by :
Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
There is no information cited by others. Collegue 1 herself brings the information to initiate the argument.
Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others
There is no information cited by others. Collegue 1 herself brings the information to initiate the argument.
Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account
Correct. Collegue 1 believes that employer has not considered the idea that the restriction forbids the friends to help each other.
Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information
No one questions the validity of the information.
Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else
There is no information cited by others.
Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view
No one questions the validity of the information.
Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument by :
Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur
Correct.Colleague 2 acknowledges the information cited by collegue 2, but changes the perception to look into.
Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account
The consideration that something is not taken into account is raised by Collegue 1. Colleague 2 tries to fill the gap.
Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in
Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view
Colleague 2 does not question the information or the evidences that Colleague 1 brings in. She just brings in a new perspective.
Hence :
Colleague 1 develops her objection by - Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account.
Colleague 2 responds to Colleague 1’s argument by - Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur.
