Employees at our company are not permitted to approach colleagues to

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).