|
|
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.
04 May 2019, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
76% (01:26) correct
24%
(01:42)
wrong
based on 416
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". In an organization, according to the principle of equivalent retaliation, the employees with whom any of their colleagues did not co-operate in some areas should also not co-operate in some other areas in order to pressure the non-cooperating colleague to start co-operating. If every employee in an organization acted according to the theory of equivalent retaliation, no employee would co-operate with any other.
The author's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. No employee in an organization actually acts according to the theory of equivalent retaliation.
B. No employee should not co-operate with any of his colleague.
C. Organization conflicts should be resolved rationally and effectively.
D. For any two employees in an organization, at least one has not co-operated in some area with the other.
E. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike.
The author's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. No employee in an organization actually acts according to the theory of equivalent retaliation.
B. No employee should not co-operate with any of his colleague.
C. Organization conflicts should be resolved rationally and effectively.
D. For any two employees in an organization, at least one has not co-operated in some area with the other.
E. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike.
05 May 2019, 00:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO answer is D
Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". In an organization, according to the principle of equivalent retaliation, the employees with whom any of their colleagues did not co-operate in some areas should also not co-operate in some other areas in order to pressure the non-cooperating colleague to start co-operating. If every employee in an organization acted according to the theory of equivalent retaliation, no employee would co-operate with any other.
The author's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. No employee in an organization actually acts according to the theory of equivalent retaliation.
B. No employee should not co-operate with any of his colleague.
C. Organization conflicts should be resolved rationally and effectively.
D. For any two employees in an organization, at least one has not co-operated in some area with the other - This needs to be true in order to hold the argument. i.e. if any b/w two employees in an organization are not co-operating with each other then it means no employee would co-operate with one another
E. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike.
Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". In an organization, according to the principle of equivalent retaliation, the employees with whom any of their colleagues did not co-operate in some areas should also not co-operate in some other areas in order to pressure the non-cooperating colleague to start co-operating. If every employee in an organization acted according to the theory of equivalent retaliation, no employee would co-operate with any other.
The author's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. No employee in an organization actually acts according to the theory of equivalent retaliation.
B. No employee should not co-operate with any of his colleague.
C. Organization conflicts should be resolved rationally and effectively.
D. For any two employees in an organization, at least one has not co-operated in some area with the other - This needs to be true in order to hold the argument. i.e. if any b/w two employees in an organization are not co-operating with each other then it means no employee would co-operate with one another
E. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike.
06 May 2019, 09:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thank You Gaurav2m for the answer 
