Human beings, born with a drive to explore and experiment, thrive on l

P1 – People thrive on learning, but corps oriented towards controlling (not learning). Controlling is bad for long-term survival.
P2 – Survival = learning organizations; Corporations need to move away from one leader to shared leadership and continual learning.
1.
A. Opposite answer. “Unfortunately, corporations are oriented predominantly toward controlling employees, not fostering their learning.”
B. Opposite answer. “In learning organizations…leaders become designers, teachers, and stewards, roles requiring new skills: …to reveal and challenge prevailing mental models.” – this is the new (proposed) organization, not the traditional one.
C. Bingo – “The traditional view that a single charismatic leader should set the corporation’s direction and make key decisions is rooted in an individualistic worldview”
D. Out of scope/opposite – Likely neither, but if anything, this would be the new organization (but unlikely it seems).
E. Out of scope – Nothing about advice and/or career guidance is mentioned. But if anything, this could be the new organization. Advice could be seen as helping employees learn, making this the new (learning) organization.

2
A. Opposite answer. This is controlling an employee. “Carefully defining one’s job description” and making sure there’s no/minimal deviation from that? Sounds like a perfect way to stifle learning and an optimal environment to encourage leadership control.
B. Opposite answer, if anything. Mentoring programs so employees follow the norm? Optimal way to control employees and force them into some traditional model that’s been around “for many years.”
C. Out of scope/irrelevant.
D. Story trap/half right and half wrong. Sounds pretty good up until the very end – “submitting it to a corporate leader for approval.” This sounds like the traditional model. And it also draws on information for someone outside the scope of this argument; namely, it draws on the element of submission to a higher up. This isn’t discussed. One could say, yeah we need to study this problem, prepare the report, but definitely has to still be submitted to a leader, regardless of the organization. This is speculation.
E. Bingo.

3
A. Out of scope. Nothing about profits is discussed within the confines of this argument. We want to know if controlling vs. learning within a corporate environment is good/bad/what the implications are.
B. Opposite, if anything. “To survive in the future, corporations must become “learning organizations…” The argument makes a distinction between learning and controlling. The answer says “should exercise more control over employees.” Thus, opposite.
C. Out of scope. Nothing about incentives is directly/indirectly implicated within the argument.
D. Bingo.
E. Story trap. The argument is about becoming a learning organization.

4
A. Opposite. The whole argument talks about learning and all the good stuff and how it should be the future to survive.
B. Not necessarily evaluating criticisms of the new approach. Maybe we could evaluate the criticisms of the traditional approach.
C. We’re not reconciling here.
D. Is it “typical” organizational structures? No where in the passage does it say the new organizational structure is “typical” or alludes to this definition. It just provides definitions that it should do these things (i.e., foster a learning environment)
E. Bingo. The common = traditional. And the new organizational structure could definitely be an alternative. It shows that learning (i.e., the alternative) is a crucial element for long term survival as compared to controlling.