ERROR SENTENCES

TUGAS PBIBK 3

ASRI JUL MEGITA (11614748)

4SA01

The wrong answer is A. It should be “occurred”

Why it should use “occurred”? Because this sentence is past tense, therefore it should use verb 2 not verb 1. Besides, the sentence above is also an IF CONDITIONAL sentence type 2, which the pattern should be IF + SIMPLE PAST followed by  PRESENT CONDITIONAL. Thus, the sentence should be If a crisis occurred, those unfamiliar with the procedures wouldn't know how to handle the situation.

The wrong answer is D. It should be “woman”

Why it should use “woman”? Because this sentence only talks about one person, so it should use singular noun “woman” instead of plural noun “women”. Woman is a singular term used to describe one lady, however women is a plural term used to describe many lady. Thus, the sentence should be When she retired in 1989, tennis champion Christine Evert was the most famous woman athlete in the United Stated.

The wrong answer is C. It should be “sold”

Why it should use “sold”? Because the sentence above tells about past event which is indicates by “had bought”, therefore it should use verb past. Then, the sentence should be After she had bought herself a new automobile, she sold her bicycle.

INDIRECT SENTENCE

TUGAS PBIBK 2 : Direct Sentences into Indirect Sentences

INDIRECT SENTENCES IN AN ARTICLE

Why we should all stop saying

“I know exactly how you feel”

To know all direct sentences in the article, you could visit and read the full article in https://ideas.ted.com/why-we-should-all-stop-saying-i-know-exactly-how-you-feel/

Direct Sentences CHANGE INTO Indirect Sentences

1.     Direct     :

     my friend snapped, “Okay, Celeste, you win. You never had a dad and I at least got to spend 30 years with mine. You had it worse. I guess I shouldn’t be so upset that my dad just died.”

     Indirect   :

     my friend snapped that okay I won, I never had had a dad and she at least had gotten to spend 30 years with hers. I had had it worse. She guessed that she shouldn’t be so upset that her dad had just died.

2.     Direct     :

      I said, “that’s not what I’m saying at all. I just meant I know how you feel.” And she answered, “No, Celeste, you don’t. You have no idea how I feel.”

Indirect   :

I said that it wasn’t what I was saying at all. I just had meant I knew how her felt. And she answered that I had no idea how her felt.

3.     Direct     :

     Study author Dr. Tania Singer observed, “The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experience less positively.”

Indirect   :

Study author Dr. Tania Singer observed that the participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experience less positively.

4.     Direct     :

     At the end of our call, she said, “Thank you for your advice. You’ve really helped me work some things out.”

Indirect   :

At the end of our call, she said that she thanked me for my advice. I had had really helped her work some things out.

TUGAS PBIBK 2

Asri Jul Megita, Alexander, Febriametra Olga, and Talitha Rahma (4SA01)

Direct Sentences in an Article

Why we should all stop saying “I know exactly how you feel”

Sep 21, 2017 / Celeste Headlee

You don’t. And you’re also steering the focus away from someone who probably just wants to be heard. Here’s how to be a more considerate conversation partner, says radio host and writer Celeste Headlee.

A good friend of mine lost her dad some years back. I found her sitting alone outside our workplace, just staring at the horizon. She was absolutely distraught, and I didn’t know what to say to her. It’s so easy to say the wrong thing to someone who is grieving and vulnerable.

So I started talking about how I grew up without a father. I told her my dad had drowned in a submarine when I was only nine months old and I’d always mourned his loss, even though I’d never known him. I wanted her to realize that she wasn’t alone, that I’d been through something similar and I could understand how she felt.

But after I related this story, my friend snapped, “Okay, Celeste, you win. You never had a dad and I at least got to spend 30 years with mine. You had it worse. I guess I shouldn’t be so upset that my dad just died.”

I was stunned and mortified. “No, no, no,” I said, “that’s not what I’m saying at all. I just meant I know how you feel.”

And she answered, “No, Celeste, you don’t. You have no idea how I feel.”

She walked away and I stood there feeling like a jerk. I had wanted to comfort her and, instead, I’d made her feel worse. When she began to share her raw emotions, I felt uncomfortable so I defaulted to a subject with which I was comfortable: myself. She wanted to talk about her father, to tell me about the kind of man he was. She wanted to share her cherished memories. Instead, I asked her to listen to my story.

From that day forward, I started to notice how often I responded to stories of loss and struggle with stories of my own experiences. My son would tell me about clashing with a kid in Boy Scouts, and I would talk about a girl I fell out with in college. When a coworker got laid off, I told her about how much I struggled to find a job after I had been laid off years earlier. But when I began to pay more attention, I realized the effect of sharing my experiences was never as I intended. What all of these people needed was for me to hear them and acknowledge what they were going through. Instead, I forced them to listen to me.

Sociologist Charles Derber describes this tendency as “conversational narcissism.” Often subtle and unconscious, it’s the desire to take over a conversation, to do most of the talking, and to turn the focus of the exchange to yourself. Derber writes that it “is the key manifestation of the dominant attention-getting psychology in America.”

He describes two kinds of responses in conversations: a shift response and a support response. The first shifts attention back to yourself, and the second supports the other person’s comment.

Example number 1:

The shift response

Mary: I’m so busy right now.

Tim: Me, too. I’m totally overwhelmed.

The support response

Mary: I’m so busy right now.

Tim: Why? What do you have to get done?

Example number 2:

The shift response

Karen: I need new shoes.

Mark: Me, too. These things are falling apart.

The support response

Karen: I need new shoes.

Mark: Oh yeah? What kind are you thinking about?

Shift responses are a hallmark of conversational narcissism — they help you turn the focus constantly back to yourself. But a support response encourages the other person to continue their story. It lets them know you’re listening and interested in hearing more.

The game of catch is often used as a metaphor for conversation. In an actual game of catch, you’re forced to take turns. But in conversation, we often find ways to resist giving someone else a turn. Sometimes, we use passive means to subtly grab control of the exchange.

This tug-of-war over attention is not always easy to track. We can very craftily disguise our attempts to shift focus. We might start a sentence with a supportive comment, and then follow up with a comment about ourselves. For instance, if a friend tells us they just got a promotion, we might respond by saying, “That’s great! Congratulations. I’m going to ask my boss for a promotion, too. I hope I get it.”

Such a response could be fine, as long as we allow the focus to shift back to the other person again. However, the healthy balance is lost when we repeatedly shine the attention back on ourselves.

While reciprocity is an important part of any meaningful conversation, the truth is shifting the attention to our own experiences is completely natural. Modern humans are hardwired to talk about themselves more than any other topic. One study found that “most social conversation time is devoted to statements about the speaker’s own emotional experiences and/or relationships, or those of third parties not present.”

The insula, an area of the brain deep inside the cerebral cortex, takes in the information that people tell us and then tries to find a relevant experience in our memory banks that can give context to the information. It’s mostly helpful: the brain is trying to make sense of what we hear and see. Subconsciously, we find similar experiences and add them to what’s happening at the moment, and then the whole package of information is sent to the limbic regions, the part of the brain just below the cerebrum. That’s where some trouble can arise — instead of helping us better understand someone else’s experience, our own experiences can distort our perceptions of what the other person is saying or experiencing.

A study from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences suggests that our egos distort our perception of our empathy. When participants watched a video of maggots in a group setting, they could understand that other people might be repulsed by it. But if one person was shown pictures of puppies while the others were shown the maggot video, the puppy viewer generally underestimated the rest of the group’s negative reaction to the maggots.

Study author Dr. Tania Singer observed, “The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experience less positively.” In other words, we tend to use our own feelings to determine how others feel.

Here’s how that translates to your daily conversations: Let’s say you and a friend are both laid off at the same time by the same company. In that case, using your feelings as a measure of your friend’s feelings may be fairly accurate because you’re experiencing the same event. But what if you’re having a great day and you meet a friend who was just laid off? Without knowing it, you might judge how your friend is feeling against your good mood. She’ll say, “This is awful. I’m so worried that I feel sick to my stomach.” You’d respond, “Don’t worry, you’ll be okay. I was laid off six years ago and everything turned out fine.” The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another.

It took me years to realize I was much better at the game of catch than I was at its conversational equivalent. Now I try to be more aware of my instinct to share stories and talk about myself. I try to ask questions that encourage the other person to continue. I’ve also made a conscious effort to listen more and talk less.

Recently, I had a long conversation with a friend who was going through a divorce. We spent almost 40 minutes on the phone, and I barely said a word. At the end of our call, she said, “Thank you for your advice. You’ve really helped me work some things out.”

The truth is, I hadn’t offered any advice. Most of what I said was a version of “That sounds tough. I’m sorry this is happening to you.” She didn’t need advice or stories from me. She just needed to be heard.

Source:

https://ideas.ted.com/why-we-should-all-stop-saying-i-know-exactly-how-you-feel/


P.S: The direct sentences are highlighted

TUGAS PBIBK 1
Alexander, Asri Jul Megita, Fevriametra Olga, and Talitha Rahma (4SA01)

JOB INTERVIEW

A job interview is a one-on-one interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most popularly used devices for employee selection. Potential job interview opportunities also include networking events and career fairs.

A job interview typically precedes the hiring decision. Besides, the job interview is considered one of the most useful tools for evaluating potential employees.

The interview is usually preceded by the evaluation of submitted resumes from interested candidates, possibly by examining job applications or reading many resumes. Next, after this screening, a small number of candidates for interviews is selected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_interview).

There are several types of questions interviewers ask applicants. The type of questions asked can affect applicant reactions. Some of the common questions on the mind of the hiring manager include:

1. Tell me about yourself.

2. Do you have any health problem? Have you ever been hospitalized?

3. What do you think are your greatest strengths and weaknesses?

4. How would describe your personality?

5. Have you ever been working under stress?

6. When did you last lose your temper? Describe what happened.

7. Do you regard yourself as an ambitious person?

8. What is more important to you: status or money?

9. What excites you about the job you are doing now?

10. What worries you about the job you are doing now?

11. What makes you think that you would enjoy working for us?

12. How long do you think you'd stay with us if you were appointed?

13. How do you like your present job?

14. What are your most proud of having done in your present job?

15. What was the worst problem you have had in your present job?

16. Why do you want to leave your present job?

17. What do you think an ideal boss is like?

18. How often were you absent from your previous job?

19. Why should we hire you instead of one of the other candidates?

20. What sort of salary are you looking for?

However, in many countries laws are put into place to prevent organizations from engaging in discriminatory practices against protected classes when selecting individuals for jobs. In the United States, it is unlawful for private employers with 15 or more employees along with state and local government employers to discriminate against applicants based on the following: race, color, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or over), disability, or genetic information (note: additional classes may be protected depending on state or local law). More specifically, an employer cannot legally "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privilege of employment" or "to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_interview).

Given these laws, organizations are limited in the types of questions they legally are allowed to ask applicants in a job interview. Asking these questions may cause discrimination against protected classes. For example, in the majority of situations it is illegal to ask the following questions in an interview as a condition of employment:

1. Do you have any physical or mental disabilities?

Such question is illegal because it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a qualified applicant or employee with disability.

2. When are you planning to have children?

This question classified into illegal question because sex is a federally protected class, which means an employer cannot discriminate against a male or female job applicant.

3. Will you need time off for religious holidays?

Religious discrimination is strictly prohibited. That is why such question is illegal to be asked in an interview. Employers are not allowed to make hiring decisions based on a person's religious beliefs, observances, or practices.

4. What is your nationality?

This is an illegal question because national origin is a federally protected class. Consequently, employers cannot base hiring decision on whether an applicant is from a different country or of a specific ethnicity.

5. What is your political affiliation?

Political affiliation is a personal preference and is a private thing. Everyone have freedom to choose what party they are supporting. That is why employers should not discriminate applicants against their political affiliation.

Then, how to answer those questions?

When an interviewee is asked illegal questions by the employer, He or She is always have the option to refuse to answer the question or to answer the question politely. For example, when a question about physical or mental disabilities comes out, you can answer such question by saying that you are confident that you will be able to handle the requirements of this position.

Also, when you are asked such what is your nationality, what is your political affiliation, when are you planning to have children, or will you need time off for religious holiday, you can answer by saying that you are confident that those things (nationality, political affiliation, children, and religious beliefs) will not interfere with your ability to do your job.

General questions are viewed more positively than situational or behavioral questions and 'illegal' interview questions may be perceived as negative being perceived unrelated to the job, unfair, or unclear how to answer. Using questions that discriminating unfairly in law unsurprisingly are viewed negatively with applicants less likely to accept a job offer, or to recommend the organization to others.

SOFTSKILL GROUP ASSIGNMENT #8

Asri, Ismadanti, Margaretha, Rahmaluttifah, Stacia, and Talitha

3SA01

NEGOTIATION

What is Negotiation?

Negotiation is a method people use to settle differences. In order to avoid argument and dispute, negotiation is needed to reach the agreement. There will be a negotiation process when each related people have different opinions, here, negotiation will play an important role to find out the best solutions of all.

What are the Negotiation Styles?

1.     Avoiding

This negotiation style is concerned with avoiding intra-personal conflict. It is characterized by sidestepping, postponing, and ignoring the issue or situation. This style of negotiation will be useful when the stakes of a negotiated outcome are not worth the investment of time or the potential for igniting conflict

2.     Accommodating

This negotiation style is concerned with the relationship between the parties. In this style of negotiation, the other side will be easily given concessions in hopes of strengthening the relationship, also will be very thoughtful to the other side which make them to be neglected their own needs, this is because they want to help the other side to get what they want

3.     Compromising

This style is in between accommodating and competing. It will be very useful to use this style when time is a concern or there is a strong relationship between the parties. In order to reach an agreement, this style need concessions from both sides. “Meet in the middle” or “Split the difference” solutions are used in this style.

4.     Collaborating

This style focuses on using problem solving methods to create value and discover mutually satisfactory agreements. Utilizes the creativity of both parties to find solutions to both sides’ interests. This style teds to be assertive about their need and cooperative with the other side.

5.     Competing

This style concerned with achieving their own goals regardless of the impact on others. This style is when one side wants to win the negotiation and the winning will make the think superior than the other side. Negotiation is viewed as a win or lose competition rather than a problem solving activity. In order to achieve their objectives, manipulative tactics such as attacks and threats are often used in this negotiation style.

Negotiation Process

In order to achieve a successful negotiation, a certain approach to negotiation is needed. The negotiation process includes the following steps:

1.     Preparation

The first step is to prepare everything that is needed to do the negotiation. This involves making sure all the pertinent facts of the situation are known in order to clarify your own position. Furthermore, before the negotiation is held, a decision needs to be taken as to when and where a meeting will take place to discuss the problem and who will attend.

2.     Discussion

During the discussion, the representatives of each side pouring their understanding of the situation and discuss it together. It will be helpful to take notes during the discussion or record the whole discussion just in case a clarification will needed in the future.  

3.     Clarifying goals

Each sides must clarify their goals. From the discussion, the goals, interests, and viewpoint of both sides need to be clarified thus future misunderstanding can be avoided. It is helpful to make a list of these things (goals, interests, and viewpoints) in order of priority. This clarification is a way to identify or establish some common ground.

4.     Negotiate Towards a Win-Win Outcome

This stage focuses on seeking for the most comfortable solutions both sides, or win-win outcomes, where both side feel they have gained positive things from this whole negotiation process. Win-win outcome is usually the best result of negotiation. Win-win outcome will be achieved if each of the point of view of both side has been taken into consideration.

5.     Agreement

Agreement can be achieved once all the things that is being negotiate has been cleared and both side feel satisfied with the outcomes. It is essential for everybody involved to keep an open mind in order to achieve an acceptable solution.

6.     Implementing a Course of Action

Based on the agreement, a course of action has to be implemented to carry through the decisions.

What are the Characteristics of Negotiation?

The characteristics of a negotiation are:

1.      There are minimum of two parties involved in a negotiation

2.      Nearly always in the form of face-to-face use of spoken language, gestures and facial expressions.

3.      Negotiation usually concerns things in the future that will come or has not happened and the negotiator wants to happen. Both parties have their own goals that they wish to achieve through the negotiation

4.      There is a clash of goals, that is, some of the goals are not shared by both parties

5.      There is an expectation of outcome by both parties in negotiation

6.      Both parties believe the outcome of the negotiation to be satisfactory

7.      Both parties are willing to compromise

8.      Both parties understand the purpose of the negotiation

9.      The end of the negotiation is the agreement taken by both parties, although the agreement is for example both parties agree to disagree.

Effect on Negotiation

A.     Positive effect

ü  In procedural terms, negotiation is probably the most flexible form of dispute resolution as it involves only those parties with an interest in the matter and their representatives. Like any method of dispute resolution, negotiation cannot guarantee that a party will be successful. However, many commentators feel that negotiations have a greater possibility of a successful outcome.

ü  The advantages of negotiation are that it limits the number of players to those involved in the dispute. This allows for a focused approach to problem solving.

ü  Assuming that the parties are negotiating in good faith, negotiation will provide the parties with the opportunity to design an agreement which reflects their interests.

ü  Negotiations may preserve and in some cases even enhance the relationship between the parties once an agreement has been reached between them.

B.     Negative effect

û  A particular negotiation may have a successful outcome. However, parties may be of unequal power and the weaker party (ies) may be placed at a disadvantage.

û  Where a party with an interest in the matter in dispute is excluded or inadequately represented in the negotiations, the agreement's value is diminished, thereby making it subject to future challenge.

û  No party can be compelled to continue negotiating. Anyone who chooses to terminate negotiations may do so at any time in the process, notwithstanding the time, effort and money that may have been invested by the other party or parties.

û  The negotiation process cannot guarantee the good faith or trustworthiness of any of the parties.

û  During the negotiations, in conveying the intentions sometimes there are any arguing with emotion that make the other party angry. Thus, it can lead to split both sides, damage business relationships and, be difficult to negotiate and make a deal in the future.

SOFTSKILL GROUP ASSIGNMENT #6

Asri, Ismadanti, Margaretha, Rahmaluttifah, Stacia, and Talitha

3SA01