Read the following message.
Hi Marcus,
I wanted to follow up on yesterday's staff meeting. When Dana praised the new intake checklist, you thanked her and explained how it would work. Because no one mentioned that we developed it together, the room was left with the impression that it was your proposal alone.
I do not think you planned that. Dana directed the question to you, and the discussion moved quickly. You also used several examples from the trial I ran, which showed that you had listened closely to my findings. Still, those examples made my absence from the story more noticeable, not less.
I am pleased that the checklist is moving ahead. I do not want a debate about credit to distract the team or make you hesitant to lead the rollout. What matters is that our different contributions are understood: I identified where applications were being delayed and tested the first version; you simplified the language and worked out how the front desk could use it.
Could you clarify that history when you send the meeting notes? A sentence saying that we developed the checklist together, followed by our separate contributions, would be enough. I would prefer that to raising the issue myself at the next meeting, which might sound as though I am correcting you in public. I am asking for accuracy, not a larger role in the rollout.
Thanks,
Elise
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given in the message.
2.Elise doubts Marcus planned sole credit since
3.Elise says her trial examples made her absence more noticeable when
4.Elise describes their contributions as
5.Elise asks Marcus to add the history to the meeting notes, believing
6.On the question of credit, Elise believes
Here is a response to the message. Complete the response by filling in the blanks. Select the best choice for each blank from the drop-down menu (▾).
You are right that the meeting left out 7. I did not intend to claim the checklist, but I should have noticed that 8. Your examples strengthened my explanation because 9.
I will add the history you suggested to the notes. That should correct the record without 10. I also appreciate that you still want me to lead the rollout. Your request is about recognizing our different contributions, not 11.
Marcus
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: ask him to correct an incomplete account of their work
Why this is correct: The whole message leads to one request. Elise asks Marcus to fix the meeting notes so they show they built the checklist together and what each person did.
Passage Reference: the room was left with the impression that it was your proposal alone.
Tips: Elise mentions Dana, her trial, the meeting notes and the rollout. Find what she says about each one, then decide which option describes the letter as a whole.
Why the other options are wrong:
- have him remove her trial examples from the notes: She wants the examples linked to her contribution, not removed.
- ask Dana to praise both of them next time: She asks Marcus for a written clarification and prefers to avoid a public correction.
- seek equal control of the rollout: She supports Marcus as rollout lead while asking for accurate credit.
Correct Answer: Dana addressed him and the talk moved quickly
Passage Reference: Dana directed the question to you, and the discussion moved quickly.
Why this is correct: The meeting circumstances offer an innocent reason he did not mention Elise.
Tips: Look for the circumstances Elise offers before describing the effect.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Dana had already read a written project history: No prior written history is mentioned.
- Marcus avoided using any of Elise's findings: He used several examples from her trial.
- Marcus refused to explain how the checklist worked: He explained the checklist to the group.
Correct Answer: he used her work without naming her
Passage Reference: You also used several examples from the trial I ran
Why this is correct: The presentation used Elise's evidence without identifying her as its source.
Tips: Read absence as missing credit, not physical attendance.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Dana saw Elise leave the room physically: Absence means missing from the project story, not her location.
- her trial had failed to produce useful findings: The trial examples supported the explanation.
- the examples confused the meeting: Elise says they showed Marcus had listened closely.
Correct Answer: different parts that together made the checklist
Passage Reference: I identified where applications were being delayed and tested the first version; you simplified the language and worked out how the front desk could use it.
Why this is correct: She assigns distinct, complementary work to each of them.
Tips: List each person's actions before summarizing the relationship.
Why the other options are wrong:
- identical work that cannot be separated: She clearly lists different tasks.
- tasks completed entirely by the front desk: Marcus planned front-desk use, but Elise and Marcus developed the tool.
- a contest over who should lead: She supports Marcus leading the rollout.
Correct Answer: it corrects the record without a public clash
Passage Reference: I would prefer that to raising the issue myself at the next meeting, which might sound as though I am correcting you in public.
Why this is correct: A written clarification achieves accuracy in a less awkward way.
Tips: Connect the method with the social risk Elise wants to avoid.
Why the other options are wrong:
- it gives Elise a larger rollout role quietly: She does not seek a larger role and asks Marcus to change the notes.
- it protects Marcus while leaving the record wrong: The purpose is to correct the record while avoiding an awkward public exchange.
- it notes joint work without separate contributions: She asks for both joint development and distinct contributions.
Correct Answer: accurate recognition matters but should not block the work
Passage Reference: I do not want a debate about credit to distract the team or make you hesitant to lead the rollout.
Why this is correct: She seeks acknowledgment while protecting momentum and Marcus's leadership.
Tips: Keep both accuracy and progress in view.
Why the other options are wrong:
- only the person who ran the trial deserves credit: She recognizes Marcus's separate contribution.
- public praise matters more than project success: She puts the project's progress first while requesting accuracy.
- credit is unimportant once a project is approved: She asks for a correction because attribution still matters.
Correct Answer: the fact that we created it together
Passage Reference: no one mentioned that we developed it together
Why this is correct: Marcus accepts that the missing fact was joint authorship.
Tips: Identify what Elise says the room never heard.
Why the other options are wrong:
- your wish to lead the rollout: Elise does not ask to lead it.
- Dana's criticism of the trial: Dana praised the checklist.
- the front desk's refusal to use it: No refusal is described.
Correct Answer: your contribution was disappearing from the explanation
Passage Reference: those examples made my absence from the story more noticeable, not less.
Why this is correct: Using Elise's findings without naming her deepened the mistaken impression.
Tips: Use story to mean the account of how the work was created.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the meeting notes had already been sent: Marcus can still add the clarification.
- Dana wanted the checklist cancelled: Her praise shows support.
- the trial examples belonged to the front desk: Elise ran the trial.
Correct Answer: they came from the trial you conducted
Passage Reference: several examples from the trial I ran
Why this is correct: Marcus acknowledges that the useful examples came from Elise's trial.
Tips: Trace the examples back to who produced them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- they proved I completed the project alone: Their source shows the opposite.
- they replaced the need to name any contributor: Using them made acknowledgment more necessary.
- they showed Dana had designed the form: Dana praised the checklist but is not its designer.
Correct Answer: putting you in the position of correcting me publicly
Passage Reference: which might sound as though I am correcting you in public.
Why this is correct: Adding the history to the notes fixes the account without requiring Elise to challenge Marcus at a meeting.
Tips: After without, choose the outcome the method avoids.
Why the other options are wrong:
- allowing me to lead the rollout: Elise supports Marcus in that role.
- naming both kinds of contribution: The correction must include them.
- describing how the checklist developed: That is exactly what the new note should do.
Correct Answer: taking over your rollout role
Passage Reference: I am asking for accuracy, not a larger role in the rollout.
Why this is correct: Marcus separates Elise's attribution request from a leadership request.
Tips: Use not to identify the stronger claim Elise rejects.
Why the other options are wrong:
- having my trial acknowledged: That is part of the requested correction.
- correcting the project history: That is what she wants.
- supporting the checklist's use: Elise wants it to move ahead.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation