This is a sample question
Sign up to join our community!
Please sign in to your account!
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
🔍 Question Type
Inference / Interpretation of Response
We are asked to determine what Ms. Siuzdak’s reply shows she understood Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply.
đź§© Breakdown of Stimulus
Notice: Mr. Janeck makes a prediction about voter behavior. Ms. Siuzdak responds as if he made a judgment on Stevenson’s suitability. The gap between prediction and evaluation is the crux of the question.
đź§ Reasoning Approach
📊 Answer Choice Analysis
✅ Correct. This matches Siuzdak’s response: she argues business experience makes Stevenson qualified, which only makes sense if she interpreted Janeck’s remark as saying Stevenson is unqualified.
❌ Too extreme. Janeck said few voters are willing, not that no one has ever been elected. Siuzdak’s reply does not assume such an absolute historical claim.
❌ Opposite direction. Siuzdak argues that business prepares one for politics. Janeck never made any claim about analogies between leadership domains.
❌ Out of scope. Neither speaker mentions morality, fairness, or profit motives. The issue is purely experience versus qualification.
❌ Misaligned. Janeck says voters hesitate to elect a candidate without political experience. That does not imply voters overestimate it — he simply reports their likely behavior. Siuzdak’s reply also does not address this.
âś… Correct Answer
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
✨ Key Insights
📝 Replicable Template
Â