For Art, a quiz 517

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, alexy

From this one sentence you are making the unwise buttumptions that: i) you have a monopoly on truth, and ii) there is only one truth, and iii) that since you used the word group "...the answer...." there is only one answer. Please notice that I did not say your buttumptions were bad buttumptions (that sentence should not be taken to mean, either, that your buttumptions were good).

Prematurely formulated hypothesis. TM claimed without prior research.

Personal relationships often lead to character evaluations independent of merit if not preferential feelings that show favoritism.

was the CEO of a business services firm providing

Hearsay.

He was fired from

Incomplete explanation fo the situation. Were the investors on the BOD which is the only enbreasty that can fire a CEO?

(hint: I was a vice president of a small company once and I can show the contract, too)

My friend wanted to try to raise

This is also poorly explained. Use of the word "want" from both sides does not say what, when, how, why, or over what period of time, mechanisms, communication history, ...lots of things.

Well, this has elements of contradiction with the previous sentence but I've heard that venture capitalists will, as part of the package to bring much additional funding to a company that has acheived "proof of concept", will require the existing CEO to be replaced by a much more aggressive and experienced person (who, himself, is often a "favorite" of the "vulture capitalists").

The question cannot be answered based on the informatiion given.

However, I will make the following observations: i) nothing recognizable as a crime was described, ii) it is impossible, otherwise, to talk about "good" in this example without first interviewing all of the parties involved. As a comparative example, in the book "Chainsaw" (about Al Dunlap), the author actually did interview almost all parties and even added footnotes to point out where different parties remembered conversations differently.

Definitely an invalid option. You need more experience writing multiple choice answers.

Well, they replaced one with another one, so what's the difference?

This option reveals your favoritism and thus is also a defective option. More was given way above.

This sentence is poor since it predicates "goodness" on the phrase "since knew who his boss was" and has gramatical and rhetorical shortcomings, too. At least I'd add the word 'he' between 'since' and 'knew.'

Yeah, I'd vote for this. But, I'll be interested to see who you think the good guy is-was. However, I'd have to accuse you of cheating because you can "look in the book."

Well, Alex, for you I count up 17 demerits, 14 organizational shortcomings, and 3 organizational deficiencies. But, nothing illegal.

Not bad, actually, for a pro-CEO guy.