FREE Amazon Maintenance Technician: Verbal Reasoning Question and Answer
A rising body of evidence indicates that frequent, proficient use of multiple languages may enhance young children's brain development. Multiple studies have found that being fluent in two or more languages improves one's capacity to concentrate in the face of distraction, choose between conflicting options, and ignore irrelevant information. Research indicates that these critical abilities, collectively referred to as "executive function" in the brain, emerge earlier in bilingual youngsters. Although the precise process by which bilingualism promotes brain growth is yet unknown, the benefit probably results from the bilingual's constant need to choose the appropriate language for each circumstance
Explanation:
Does make sense in light of the passage and is more precise.
The government has resorted to shock methods in recent years to combat smoking and the financial burden smokers have on the nation's economy through absenteeism and other health problems. The most recent anti-smoking advertisement featured tumors emerging from a cigarette. This advertisement was, needless to say, divisive.
On the one hand, the advertisement has generated a lot of interest in the topic since it was first released and has become a viral hit. According to government estimates, the campaign will encourage some 300,000 people to try to stop smoking.
However, some contend that employing a direct strategy is counterproductive because it makes people frightened. If someone believes they may have cancer or are experiencing a sign of cancer, they are prone to ignore it.
Explanation:
The sentence states, "This advertisement was contentious," and then goes on to describe the attention the advertisement received and the range of viewpoints that surrounded it. The argument is correct because the advertisement was contentious, which is another word for controversial.
Regardless of the apparent relevance, employees of organizations are legally required to review the content of emails sent to external parties and remove any potentially sensitive internal information. In order to ensure that employees fulfill their legal obligations and stop the potential leak of the entire report, employers have created mandatory contracts that stipulate this responsibility.
All employees agreed to abide by the terms of these contracts, added a copyright disclaimer to all external emails, and emphasized the confidentiality of the data given. Employees who handle information sent out via email carelessly risk harsh disciplinary measures.
Which of the following best conveys the idea of the passage in place of "stipulating"?
Explanation:
The verb "to stipulate" means "to specify," which is frequently a requirement of an agreement. In this context, the word is used to convey that the contracts created by employers clearly state that employees are responsible for keeping an eye on their e-mails and preventing the leak of sensitive information. The remaining three detractors are all inconsistent with the sentence's meaning.
Legislative requirements place a duty on employees of organizations to review the content of emails sent to outside parties and to omit any internal information that would be considered sensitive, regardless of the message's perceived value. In order to ensure that employees fulfill their legal requirements and stop the potential leak of the entire report, employers have created mandatory contracts that stipulate this responsibility.
All staff acknowledged their agreement to these contracts, emphasized the secrecy of the material sent, and added a copyright part to every external email. The severe punitive action may be taken against employees who are negligent with information that is sent over email.
Which of the following statements is not supported by the text?
Explanation:
The text states: "employees.... have (an) obligation to keep an eye on email content. Nothing in the text indicates that this is a supervisor's responsibility. As a result, the paragraph does not support this claim.
Coffee consumption is linked to a lower risk of death from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease, which may explain why coffee drinkers appear to live longer. A daily cup of coffee reduces mortality risk by 12% compared to non-coffee drinkers. Even more important is the association between drinking two to three cups per day and an 18% lower risk of passing away. Regular or decaffeinated coffee drinkers experience lower mortality, indicating that caffeine is not the cause of the link.
Explanation:
According to the passage, those who consume one cup of coffee per day have a 12% lower risk of passing away, while those who drink two to three cups per day had an 18% lower risk. The section does not, however, address the possibility that persons who consume more than three cups of coffee per day will live longer and have a higher death risk. Based on the information in the passage, you cannot determine whether the argument is true or false.
To combat smoking and the financial burden smokers place on the nation's economy—expressed in sick days and other health problems—the government has recently resorted to shock tactics. Tumors arising from cigarettes were depicted in the most recent anti-smoking advertisement. This advertisement was obviously divisive.
On the one hand, the advertisement has generated a lot of interest in the topic and has now gone viral. The government predicts that 300,000 people will try to stop smoking as a result of the program.
On the other hand, some contend that employing a forceful approach is not the greatest because people start to fear you. When someone suspects they may have cancer or are exhibiting cancer-related symptoms, they are more inclined to ignore it.
Explanation:
The government has resorted to shock measures to combat smoking and the economic burden that smokers place on the nation, according to the paragraph. Which government department or ministry is in charge of and providing financing for the campaign is not specified in the passage. As a result, you are unable to determine if the argument is true or false.
Regardless of the apparent relevance, employees of organizations are legally required to review the content of emails sent to external parties and remove any potentially sensitive internal information. In order to ensure that employees fulfill their legal obligations and stop the potential leak of the entire report, employers have created mandatory contracts that stipulate this responsibility.
All employees agreed to abide by the terms of these contracts, added a copyright disclaimer to all external emails, and emphasized the confidentiality of the data given. Employees that handle information sent out via email carelessly risk harsh disciplinary measures.
Explanation:
The phrase "legislative obligation" is used in the passage to describe the need for employees working in organizations to monitor the content of e-mails and remove potentially sensitive internal information in order to prevent sensitive information from leaking outside of the organization. Enforcing this legal requirement on employees results in them signing a contract (distractor B) and consenting to disciplinary action (distractor C). As it does not describe the specific types of emails that are to be monitored but instead refers to specific content (sensitive information), Distractor D does not accurately capture the substance of what is meant by "legislative obligation" in the text.