Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult t

Question

Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret. For instance, the regulations state that a staff member who is performing unsatisfactorily will face dismissal, but they fail to define unsatisfactory performance. Thus, some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.

Which one of the following generalizations, if applicable to Sarah’s company, most helps to justify her reasoning?

(A) Performance that falls only somewhat below expectations results in disciplinary measures short of dismissal.

(B) Interpreting regulations is a prerogative that belongs solely to supervisors.

(C) A vague regulation can be used to make those subject to it answer for their performance.

(D) A vague regulation can be used to keep those subject to it in subordinate positions.

(E) Employees usually consider specific regulations to be fairer than vague regulations.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (B)

Sarah points out that the regulations for staff review are vague and difficult to interpret. She offers the example of regulations that state that unsatisfactory performance will be met with dismissal, but those same regulations do not define unsatisfactory performance. She concludes that some staffers may be dismissed simply because their personal views are different from their supervisors’ views.

Sarah’s reasoning is flawed because she ignores the likelihood that other employee contracts and guidelines define required performance quite well, and that the regulations are merely broad so as to avoid restatements or possible conflicts when future policy changes are made. Furthermore, she cynically assumes that supervisors will equate personal views with job performance and use their positions of power to blatantly exceed the review guidelines.

Regardless of the flaws in Sarah’s argument, you are asked to fi nd a principle that will strengthen
Sarah’s conclusion, which is that “some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.”

Answer choice (A): This principle does not serve to strengthen the claim that supervisors will or can act in a capricious manner, so this answer does not strengthen the conclusion.

If anything, this choice might actually serve to weaken the stimulus. If performance that falls slightly below standards is not met with dismissal, that might establish that supervisors have some leeway. But, it also establishes that supervisors have some tendency toward leniency. If supervisors are lenient, how does that help establish that they will terminate employees for personal differences?

Answer choice (B):  This is the correct answer choice. If supervisors have the sole prerogative to interpret the regulations, that means that there are no other documents or guidelines that could restrict the supervisors from making the interpretation they wish to make. Accordingly, the supervisors would then have the power to dismiss employees for whatever reason they saw fi t, and that fact helps strengthen the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): Sarah suggests that the regulations could be used to inappropriately punish people for having certain personal views, but she does not establish that supervisors could take that kind of action. This response helps support the idea that employees are accountable for their performance, and that is contrary to the idea (or at worst, neutral) that they would be punished for their personal views.

Answer choice (D): The argument attempted to show that some staff could be  dismissed  for their personal views. This answer only shows that employees can be kept in control or withheld from promotion. As those two issues are not the same, this answer does not assist in establishing Sarah’s reasoning.

An answer such as this one can be attractive because it paints the company in a negative light. However, the task in this question is not to simply show that the company has poor policies, but rather that the policy in place can lead to the termination of an employee over their personal views. Always keep in mind precisely what you are supposed to strengthen in a question like this one.

Answer choice (E): Whether or not  employees  consider specific regulations to be fairer is not central to the issue at hand, which concerns how  supervisors  act.

Lavanyarajvi · Answer

B will be the answer acc. To me.....b b b b b b

Posted from my mobile device

asishron29181 · Answer

Premise: Some staff may be dismissed merely because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.
Conclusion: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret.

We need to strengthen the conclusion above.

B does the best to strengthen the conclusion. It says that the supervisor has the sole right of interpreting regulations and there are no such pre-defined guidelines. Hence the final call is in the hands of the supervisor.

(B) Interpreting regulations is a prerogative that belongs solely to supervisors.

IMO B

howdy16267 · Answer

Im thinking the answer is E as the conclusion is that vague regs can lead to unfair treatment from supervisors.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Uhhhh… what? I think Sarah should be dismissed for being a dumbass. It is literally impossible to define every single term in any rule or policy. If you attempt to closely define every term, your definitions are each going to include other terms that will need definitions. Eventually, every rule or policy will have to come with an accompanying dictionary and encyclopedia. This is just dumb.

Sarah has assumed, in her conclusion, that “personal views that conflict with the supervisor” could be deemed “unsatisfactory performance” by whoever is making the firing decision. I do suppose that could happen… but if it does, then it means you have horrible supervisors who shouldn’t be in supervisory roles.

We’re asked to “justify” Sarah’s reasoning. This is like a Sufficient Assumption question. We’re looking for an additional fact or rule that, when added to Sarah’s statements, will help make her conclusion valid. I think the answer will be very close to, “Some supervisors will consider ‘unsatisfactory performance’ to include conflicting personal views.”

A) Nothing here about personal views. The correct answer  must  mention personal views, since Sarah took such a big leap to that in her conclusion.
B) Nothing here about personal views. The correct answer  must  mention personal views, since Sarah took such a big leap to that in her conclusion.
C) Nothing here about personal views. The correct answer  must  mention personal views, since Sarah took such a big leap to that in her conclusion.
D) Nothing here about personal views. The correct answer  must  mention personal views, since Sarah took such a big leap to that in her conclusion.
E) Nothing here about personal views. The correct answer  must  mention personal views, since Sarah took such a big leap to that in her conclusion.

Oops. Okay, so I eliminated all five answers. This is fine. If you don’t do this sometimes, you’re not being critical enough of the answer choices. Rereading the question, I see that we’re being asked to find an answer that “most helps to justify” Sarah’s reasoning. This means that we’re actually not required to prove her conclusion; rather, we just need to find the answer that helps her logic the most.

On further review, B looks like the best strengthener. Because if it is true that supervisors are  solely  responsible for interpreting regulations (including the regulation about unsatisfactory performance), then it is possible that some supervisors will abuse that power, and fire people solely for disagreeing with them about politics or sports or  Dancing with the Stars  or whatever.

So our answer is B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult t

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Sarah: Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult t

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