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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explanation:
Does make sense in light of the passage and is more precise.