BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

OG - RC Passage2 - Q3

Expert replies
by fiza gupta » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:42 am
In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems (CPMCS) that record and report a worker's computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be
having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors' ratings of workers' performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs
as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker's productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.
It is possible that productivity may be a "hygiene factor"; that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes "good enough," higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.

Q) According to the passage, a "hygiene factor" (line 27) is an aspect of a worker's performance that

A. has no effect on the rating of a worker's performance
B. is so basic to performance that it is assumed to be adequate for all workers
C. is given less importance than it deserves in rating a worker's performance
D. if not likely to affect a worker's rating unless it is judged to be inadequate
E. is important primarily because of the effect it has on a worker's rating

OA:D
Fiza Gupta
Join the discussion
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:46 am
fiza gupta wrote:In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems (CPMCS) that record and report a worker's computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be
having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors' ratings of workers' performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs
as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker's productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.
It is possible that productivity may be a "hygiene factor"; that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes "good enough," higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.

Q) According to the passage, a "hygiene factor" (line 27) is an aspect of a worker's performance that

A. has no effect on the rating of a worker's performance
B. is so basic to performance that it is assumed to be adequate for all workers
C. is given less importance than it deserves in rating a worker's performance
D. if not likely to affect a worker's rating unless it is judged to be inadequate
E. is important primarily because of the effect it has on a worker's rating

OA:D
The last two sentences of the passage: It is possible that productivity may be a "hygiene factor"; that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes "good enough," higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.

The idea is that hygiene factor hurts the rating if its low, but won't help the rating beyond a certain critical threshold. The answer is D
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion