The queue you cannot see: an imagined case

Questions

You answer them with the text in front of you. It isn't memory: it's understanding.

1. How does the opening concession shape the criticism that follows?

   It acknowledges a real gain while questioning whether the measure captures the whole effort. — Evidence: «Conviene celebrar esa mejora» / «La espera también puede mudarse de sitio.». “It acknowledges a real gain while questioning whether the measure captures the whole effort.” — Correct: The accessible entrance is a gain; the later criticism concerns effort omitted from the measure. “It treats the entrance improvement as provisional evidence that more visitor space has been created.” — Incorrect: The concession concerns waiting at the entrance, whereas paragraph 3 says that changing the channel creates no space. “It accepts the new measure while asking visitors to interpret its figures more generously.” — Incorrect: The argument asks the institution to broaden measurement, rather than visitors to reinterpret the existing figures. “It praises the new arrangement chiefly to support a return to selling tickets at the entrance.” — Incorrect: Paragraphs 3 and 4 reject that inference and retain advance booking.

2. What does the neighbour’s case reveal about the report’s apparent precision?

   Its precise timing concerns successful reservations and leaves earlier access difficulties unmeasured. — Evidence: «después de conseguir una reserva» / «guarda silencio sobre lo anterior». “The measured waiting time includes favours but gives them less weight than time at the entrance.” — Incorrect: The text says the earlier stage is absent, rather than included with a lower weight. “The neighbour’s repeated attempts make the reported entrance times unlikely to be accurate.” — Incorrect: Nothing challenges the accuracy of timing at the entrance; the challenge concerns its coverage. “Its precise timing concerns successful reservations and leaves earlier access difficulties unmeasured.” — Correct: The measured group has already crossed the reservation barrier; the neighbour illustrates the missing stage. “The report’s omission chiefly prevents a comparison between online and telephone visitors.” — Incorrect: Telephone access is proposed later, while the omission already concerns unsuccessful online attempts.

3. Which interpretation of “De ahí no se sigue” fits the argument?

   Limited capacity explains the need to allocate places, but does not justify this allocation method. — Evidence: «cambiar de pantalla a ventanilla no crea espacio» / «De ahí no se sigue, sin embargo, que el reparto actual sea neutral.». “Limited capacity makes judging the allocation method premature until the museum expands.” — Incorrect: Paragraph 4 proposes evaluating allocation changes during a defined period before expansion. “Limited capacity explains the need to allocate places, but does not justify this allocation method.” — Correct: The author accepts the capacity constraint while separating it from the fairness of the schedule. “The director’s reply fails because a telephone channel would increase the available capacity.” — Incorrect: Telephone requests change access to places; the text explicitly separates this from expanding capacity. “The director’s reply implies that allocation matters less than visitors’ interest in the exhibition.” — Incorrect: The paragraph argues that the system selects availability as well as interest, without ranking those factors as values.

4. Which additional evidence would best test the author’s proposed trial?

   A record of failed attempts and scheduling obstacles alongside successful visits. — Evidence: «qué dificultades encuentran quienes lo intentan y se quedan fuera» / «El registro de intentos fallidos». “A comparison of entrance photographs taken before and after the trial.” — Incorrect: That repeats the visible-door perspective questioned in paragraphs 1 and 6. “A comparison of visitors’ digital skills with their satisfaction after entering.” — Incorrect: That focuses on successful visitors and a skill explanation challenged in paragraph 5. “A record of telephone bookings combined with the museum’s maximum occupancy.” — Incorrect: Those figures describe the proposed channel and capacity, but omit unsuccessful attempts and their obstacles. “A record of failed attempts and scheduling obstacles alongside successful visits.” — Correct: It covers both outcomes and the barriers that the entrance statistic misses.

5. Why does the discussion of digital skill matter to the proposed remedy?

   Misidentifying a scheduling barrier as lack of skill would target help at the wrong cause. — Evidence: «lo que no tiene es permiso para interrumpir su trabajo» / «una decisión sobre horarios en una carencia personal». “Misidentifying a scheduling barrier as lack of skill would target help at the wrong cause.” — Correct: The neighbour is digitally competent; her work schedule prevents access at the release time. “More training would let the neighbour complete a booking without interrupting her work.” — Incorrect: The case supplies no evidence that speed or training would remove the clash of schedules. “Her competence means the museum should prioritise her request over less experienced users.” — Incorrect: The example challenges a diagnosis; it does not establish a priority based on competence. “The scheduling barrier is chiefly evidence that telephone requests would need fewer staff.” — Incorrect: The text acknowledges costs, but does not compare staffing needs or infer them from the neighbour’s skill.

6. Which statement preserves the scope of the closing position?

   Keep the efficient entrance while evaluating who bears the effort before reaching it. — Evidence: «Mantengamos la entrada ágil, pero ampliemos la pregunta.» / «ninguna sustituye la ampliación del aforo». “Make the entrance slower so that waiting becomes visible in the official figures.” — Incorrect: The author wants to retain efficient entry and measure earlier effort separately. “Judge openness chiefly by the number of telephone requests accepted during the trial.” — Incorrect: That channel is one measure, whereas the proposed evaluation includes attempts across the process. “Keep the efficient entrance while evaluating who bears the effort before reaching it.” — Correct: The ending retains the gain and widens the access question; it does not promise that the trial removes capacity limits. “Treat the trial as a substitute for expanding capacity if its entrance times improve.” — Incorrect: Paragraph 4 explicitly separates the measures from expansion; entrance times alone remain insufficient.