Hi Wangcincay,Your instinct to be careful was right; it just landed on the wrong word. Let me show you where, because the read you used would have cost you on a different version of this question.
The slip: you treated "employees" as "non-supervisor employees," so you ruled Jamal out for
being a supervisor. But look back at the Table tab: it lists the ten
employees and their supervisors, and the note says the supervisors are also employees - that's why every supervisor's name shows up in
both columns. So "employee" here includes the supervisors. Jamal is an employee. So is Kim.
Why that matters: the correct count of
2 is Kim and Richard - and
Kim is a supervisor. If the question really meant "non-supervisors only," Kim wouldn't be allowed, and the answer would change. You got
2 because two errors happened to cancel, not because the exclusion was right.
The rule that actually does the filtering comes from the Discussion tab plus the Floor Plan, not from job title. Office 112 touches only one other office - 111. So whoever sits in 112 can satisfy
at most one adjacency link:
- Jamal, Ciaran, Leila each supervise
two people who must sit adjacent - one neighbor (111) can't hold two. Out.
- Anyone reporting up a longer chain (Selena, Elena, Pablo, Atticus, Mei, Ciaran) needs their own supervisor next door, and that supervisor needs
their people too - the chain won't fit against a single wall. Out.
-
Kim and Richard is a lone pair: put one in 112, the other in 111, done. Both qualify.
So the disqualifier is
number of adjacency links versus 112's single neighbor - read straight off the floor plan - never "is this person a supervisor."
Quick gut-check to lock the reading: suppose the Table note instead said
"supervisors are listed for reference and are not among the employees being assigned." Then Kim couldn't take 112 and the count would drop to
1. Notice how the answer swings entirely on that one scope line - that's the line to read precisely, every time, before you start placing anyone.
Answer: 2Wangcincay
i got no 1 right if it's not for the fact i thought they are asking for pure employee only. in this case jamal is a supervisor so he doesn't count. Can anyone tell me how they managed to avoid this sort of ambiguity. I feel like being punished for extra care