Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to

Question

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.

Sajjad1994 · Accepted Answer

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).

Sumi1010 · Answer

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.

Deepakjhamb · Answer

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

Solution :

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

lets now eliminate and choose options with reasons :

Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur: s econd person is acknowledging that collegues can be friends but says that still such negative pressure can harm the professional relationship. Ultimately, the productivity of a team or an entire division could be lowered . Thus demonstrates that real objective is still the best interest of company . hence the answer to how person 2 refutes person 1 arguement  
Argues against specific pieces of evidence cited by others :  no one is arguing against any evidence cited , so this is out 
Introduces a new consideration that she believes has not yet been taken into account :  yes , first person introduces a new consideration that often collegues are friends and thus are company's real intentions to forbid friends from helping one another 
Implies that an argument put forth by others is based upon faulty information:  no one is saying that arguement put forth by other is based upon faulty info 
Cites new information to refute evidence presented by someone else :  evidence by first party is not being refuted that collegues can be friends , so its out  
Questions the validity of data used by others to support an alternative point of view:  no one questions the validity of data used by others to support the alternative point of view

rocky620 · Answer

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.  
 
Acknowledges information cited by others but demonstrates that, even still, a certain outcome can occur....  Colleague 2's Argument  . Colleague 2, acknowledges the fact/belief brought forward by Colleague 1, But she says in the favor of the employer by introducing some other facts/beliefs that Employees may feel pressure to donate, even if they are friends. This may lead to decreased productivity level of the division (this is a certain outcome that 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.....  Colleague 1's Argument  . Colleague 1, says that that as per our policy we cannot approach fellow colleagues for any sort of donation, but she believes that colleagues are often friends and this policy forbid friends to help other friends. She is surmised that this fact/belief has not been taken into account while creating the policies.

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

Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

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.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards