PrepTest 149, Section 1, Question 9

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  Before requesting a replacement, a supervisor must know that another employee can perform all of the person's work equally well. That makes full replacement of the person's contributions a requirement for requesting the change.

  Ted's contributions are unique and perhaps irreplaceable. That is a reason Tatiana lacks the assurance A requires. We don't have to turn 'perhaps irreplaceable' into proof that nobody could ever replace him. The rule demands knowledge that all the work can be done equally well, and the possibility of losing those contributions supports holding back the request. This is more precise than a rule protecting every employee who is useful in some way.

• B

  Fair compensation might be a reason to review Ted's pay. But Tatiana isn't deciding whether to raise his salary; she is deciding whether to request his replacement. B also doesn't establish that Ted's belief about his pay is correct. It supplies no rule connecting his contributions to the decision she actually makes.

• C

  Having the final authority to replace someone is different from asking the person with that authority to do it. Tatiana could request a replacement while a more senior manager makes the final decision. C therefore doesn't justify withholding the request.

• D

  Joint responsibility might explain why coworkers need to help with the work, or give us a reason to criticize Ted for shifting his share to them. It doesn't tell Tatiana whether keeping him is the right response. The question concerns her decision about his replacement, not just the workers' duties to one another.

• E

  This helps explain how someone working fewer hours could still contribute a great deal, which fits what we are told about Ted. But recognizing his contribution isn't yet a rule about what to do. We still need to know when that contribution justifies retaining him despite the burden on others. A supplies that connection.