Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for each employee who submits documentation to the company proving...

GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Two Part Analysis

Verbal - CR

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for each employee who submits documentation to the company proving that the employee had a comprehensive medical exam in a given year. The policy has been successful in increasing the number of employees who get the exam annually precisely because the benefit requires this specific form of documentation, and this success has resulted in improved employee health. [Insert Sentence 1.]

Manager T: I agree that the overall policy has improved employee health, and it is good to improve employee health. However, the required documentation resulted in our company having access to an employee's private medical data. The benefit to employee health is not worth compromising employee privacy. [Insert Sentence 2.]

Select for Sentence 1 the sentence that best completes Manager S's argument, and select for Sentence 2 the sentence that best completes Manager T's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Requiring the documentation has no effect on employees.

Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does.

Our company should not require that form of documentation.

Promoting employee health with financial incentives is counterproductive.

Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile.

Solution

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

First, Create an Argument Analysis Table

Text from Passage	Analysis
"Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for each employee who submits documentation to the company proving that the employee had a comprehensive medical exam"	What it says: Company gives money to employees who prove they got medical exams What it does: Establishes the policy being discussed Key connections: This is the foundation for both managers' arguments Visualization: Company → $ → Employee (if documentation provided)
"The policy has been successful in increasing the number of employees who get the exam annually precisely because the benefit requires this specific form of documentation"	What it says: More employees get exams because of the documentation requirement What it does: Claims causal relationship between documentation and success Key connections: Documentation is essential to S's argument Visualization: Documentation requirement → More exams
"this success has resulted in improved employee health"	What it says: The increased exams led to better health What it does: States the ultimate positive outcome Key connections: Completes S's chain of benefits Visualization: More exams → Better health
"I agree that the overall policy has improved employee health"	What it says: Manager T accepts the health benefits What it does: Establishes common ground Key connections: Shows T isn't disputing effectiveness Visualization: Agreement on health improvement
"the required documentation resulted in our company having access to an employee's private medical data"	What it says: Documentation gives company access to private information What it does: Introduces the privacy concern Key connections: This is T's main objection Visualization: Documentation → Company sees private data
"The benefit to employee health is not worth compromising employee privacy"	What it says: Privacy outweighs health benefits What it does: States T's value judgment Key connections: Explains why T opposes despite benefits Visualization: Privacy > Health benefits

Second, Identify Argument Structure

Manager S's Argument:

Main conclusion: [To be inserted as Sentence 1]
Supporting evidence: Documentation requirement → More exams → Better health
Key assumption: The documentation requirement is essential to the policy's success
Overall flow: Positive results justify the current approach

Manager T's Argument:

Main conclusion: [To be inserted as Sentence 2]
Supporting evidence: Documentation gives company access to private medical data
Key assumption: Employee privacy is more important than health improvements
Overall flow: Privacy concerns outweigh health benefits

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

First, Understand What Each Part Asks

We need to:

Part 1 (Sentence 1): Find what completes Manager S's argument logically
Part 2 (Sentence 2): Find what completes Manager T's argument logically

Both parts ask for logical completions that follow from each manager's reasoning.

Second, Generate Prethinking Based on Question Type

Since we're asked for logical completion:

We need sentences that would naturally conclude each manager's line of reasoning
The completions should be consistent with their stated positions and values

Third, Develop Specific Prethinking for Each Part

For Part 1 (Manager S):

S believes the documentation requirement is key to success
S values the health improvements achieved
Logical completion: "We should keep doing what works" or "The documentation requirement should continue"

For Part 2 (Manager T):

T believes privacy violations aren't worth health benefits
T specifically objects to the documentation giving the company access to private data
Logical completion: "We should stop requiring the documentation" or "Find another way without privacy issues"

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Choice: "Requiring the documentation has no effect on employees."

This contradicts both managers (both acknowledge effects)
Doesn't complete either argument logically
Not suitable for either part

Choice: "Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does."

Perfect completion for Manager S's argument
S argues the documentation is precisely why the policy succeeds
Strong fit for Part 1

Choice: "Our company should not require that form of documentation."

Perfect completion for Manager T's argument
T's entire objection centers on the documentation compromising privacy
Strong fit for Part 2

Choice: "Promoting employee health with financial incentives is counterproductive."

Contradicts both managers (both acknowledge health improvements)
Doesn't follow from either argument
Not suitable for either part

Choice: "Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile."

Too general - doesn't address the specific documentation issue
Both managers already agree incentives can improve health
Weak for both parts

The Correct Answers

For Part 1 (Sentence 1): "Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does."

This perfectly completes Manager S's pro-documentation argument
Follows logically from S's claim that documentation is "precisely" why the policy works

For Part 2 (Sentence 2): "Our company should not require that form of documentation."

This perfectly completes Manager T's anti-documentation argument
Follows logically from T's position that privacy violations outweigh health benefits

Common Traps to Highlight

The "too general" trap: Choice 5 might seem appealing because both managers value employee health, but it doesn't address the specific documentation debate that distinguishes their positions.

The "contradiction" trap: Choices 1 and 4 directly contradict what both managers explicitly state, making them obviously wrong but potentially confusing if we misread the passage.

The key insight: This question tests whether we can identify that the managers disagree specifically about the documentation requirement, not about whether employee health is valuable.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...