Are you smarter than a US diplomat: quiz

Are you smarter than a US diplomat? Take our Foreign Service Exam.
Diplomats working for the US Foreign Service are responsible for carrying out the policy of the United States. In order to serve at one of the 265 US diplomatic missions around the world, applicants must pass a series of examinations.

The tests consist of a job knowledge test, English language test, essays, oral exams, and a qualifications panel. Our 20 questions are modeled after the job knowledge portion of the Foreign Service Officer's test. The real examination consists of 60 questions and is administered over 40 minutes. Think you know enough to become a US diplomat? Take our quiz.

- Jacob Turcotte

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign...xam/US-History


I missed 4, including one I probably shouldn't have, because I overthought it. :bang

Interesting to see what the test might be like.

The question about what makes for "persuasive speech" was particularly interesting.

16 out of 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

16 out of 20.

---

What did you think of the test?

It was an interesting assortment of topics, and not quite what I expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

What did you think of the test?

It was an interesting assortment of topics, and not quite what I expected.

---

I agree. The art question was one I wasn't expecting, and one I missed.

i missed 7.

I did so terribly, I decided to not finish.

What does title ix have to do with being a diplomat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

What does title ix have to do with being a diplomat?

---

they have to peek under the burka's to confirm gender, silly.

I never understood exactly what they were getting at with the currency question. Pretty proud that I knew that Jackson Pollock question though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

What does title ix have to do with being a diplomat?

---

I guess one has to have a basic grounding in human rights type legislation in the US.

If someone were to ask you about gender equality in your country, being able to speak generally on the topic on the spot would probably be a good thing.

Just a guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I never understood exactly what they were getting at with the currency question. Pretty proud that I knew that Jackson Pollock question though.

---

You start off at you starting dollar amount, and they want you to find how much money you spent/gained in the course of spending in one currency, and given money in another.

All you had to do was convert the amounts to the "common denominator" of US currency.

Given the importance of currency conversion rates to trade, understanding some basic interrelationships seems reasonable for someone working in an embassy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I guess one has to have a basic grounding in human rights type legislation in the US.

If someone were to ask you about gender equality in your country, being able to speak generally on the topic on the spot would probably be a good thing.

Just a guess.

---

seems like a good guess

They said starting money or currency, i didn't know if they meant how much american dollars you had originally or how much american dollars you had at the second country or whatnot. I can't remember, I didn't spend too much time on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

They said starting money or currency, i didn't know if they meant how much american dollars you had originally or how much american dollars you had at the second country or whatnot. I can't remember, I didn't spend too much time on it.

---

$320/$8=$40

$66/12=$5.50

40-5.5=$34.50 iirc

I take issue with this question and answer:

12. Which of the following elements is NOT likely to increase the effectiveness of persuasive speech?

ANS: strongly stated opinions and logical fallacy

Can anyone really believe that in our political climate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I take issue with this question and answer:

12. Which of the following elements is NOT likely to increase the effectiveness of persuasive speech?

ANS: strongly stated opinions and logical fallacy

Can anyone really believe that in our political climate?

---

in the real world, good point.

I didn't even think twice about it because I'm used to the political forum climate where we know this to be true.

I missed 8 and guessed right on two of them I had no clue about. Thanks for posting RG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I take issue with this question and answer:

12. Which of the following elements is NOT likely to increase the effectiveness of persuasive speech?

ANS: strongly stated opinions and logical fallacy

Can anyone really believe that in our political climate?

---

lmao

I was about to come here and post that exact observation.

how many politicians, even in the Presidency ala W Bush, do this shit all the time?

14 out of 20

missed some dumb ones I already knew, but tbh, some of the questions have questionable answers.

i legitimately didn't know about the "blind interview"... because why would anyone give that a term for something so irrelevant?

who cares who is doing the interview? the questions are what's important...i figured "not seeing the questions beforehand" was what it meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

$320/$8=$40

$66/12=$5.50

40-5.5=$34.50 iirc

---

My accounting professors would not approve. "sign integrity" and "unit integrity" they would say.

-320unitsA/8unitsA/$ = -$40 = how much you spent.

66unitsB/12unitsB/$= $5.50 = how much you were given.

-$40+$5.5= -$34.50

You end up with $34.50 less than when you started, or -$34.50

:toast

(well meant in good humor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

14 out of 20

missed some dumb ones I already knew, but tbh, some of the questions have questionable answers.

i legitimately didn't know about the "blind interview"... because why would anyone give that a term for something so irrelevant?

who cares who is doing the interview? the questions are what's important...i figured "not seeing the questions beforehand" was what it meant.

---

That one didn't make sense to me either. Tough quiz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

14 out of 20

missed some dumb ones I already knew, but tbh, some of the questions have questionable answers.

i legitimately didn't know about the "blind interview"... because why would anyone give that a term for something so irrelevant?

who cares who is doing the interview? the questions are what's important...i figured "not seeing the questions beforehand" was what it meant.

---

Well, when a journalist calls you and uses certain terms, you should know if your name will pop up in the article as a source. Kinda makes sense that a diplomat would need to know the lingo of journalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Well, when a journalist calls you and uses certain terms, you should know if your name will pop up in the article as a source. Kinda makes sense that a diplomat would need to know the lingo of journalists.

---

I gurantee you every politician knew what it meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My accounting professors would not approve. "sign integrity" and "unit integrity" they would say.

-320unitsA/8unitsA/$ = -$40 = how much you spent.

66unitsB/12unitsB/$= $5.50 = how much you were given.

-$40+$5.5= -$34.50

You end up with $34.50 less than when you started, or -$34.50

:toast

(well meant in good humor)

---

LOL, they have to give something a name just remind you accountants not to flip your signs? No wonder y'all weren't allowed in the real calc classes. :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I take issue with this question and answer:

12. Which of the following elements is NOT likely to increase the effectiveness of persuasive speech?

ANS: strongly stated opinions and logical fallacy

Can anyone really believe that in our political climate?

---

That was one of the questions that stood out to me as well.

Provable logical fallacies tend to make for bad arguments, because they have very ready-made refutations, especially if you are trying to convince someone who hasn't already made up their mind.

As for "strongly stated opinions", the old adage that "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" probably holds true.

Be interesting to see what the principles of persuasive speech are. Probably find them on wiki or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My accounting professors would not approve. "sign integrity" and "unit integrity" they would say.

-320unitsA/8unitsA/$ = -$40 = how much you spent.

66unitsB/12unitsB/$= $5.50 = how much you were given.

-$40+$5.5= -$34.50

You end up with $34.50 less than when you started, or -$34.50

:toast

(well meant in good humor)

---

ah yeah, it was $5.50-$40

luckily I'm only going for my diplomat diploma here and not an accounting one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I gurantee you every politician knew what it meant.

---

Maybe so, it was one of the questions I missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I missed 8 and guessed right on two of them I had no clue about. Thanks for posting RG.

---

You're welcome. It seemed to be an intresting insight into what it takes to work at the State Department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I take issue with this question and answer:

12. Which of the following elements is NOT likely to increase the effectiveness of persuasive speech?

ANS: strongly stated opinions and logical fallacy

Can anyone really believe that in our political climate?

---

A diplomat's audience isn't really the same as a politician's though. Different tactics are neccessary. A politician's audience is large mass of people and the goal is to persuade 50%+1 of them. A diplomat's audience is a much smaller crowd and the goal is to persuade 100% of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I never understood exactly what they were getting at with the currency question. Pretty proud that I knew that Jackson Pollock question though.

---

Yeah, that currency question was poorly worded.

Quote:

---

10. You spend 320.00 in a foreign currency while traveling. The exchange rate is 8.00 = $1.00. The next country you visit has an exchange rate of 12.00 = $1.00. You receive 66.00 of the next country's currency from a friend. How much has your original amount of money changed?

---

Is the first "320" the amount of dollars you have? Or the amount of foreign currency? And when they ask how much the "original" amount changed, are they also including the money you "spent" or not?

Edit: I'm retarded! It says so in the question. I kept reading "currency" as "country". :lol

Also, I got 12 of 20. Good quiz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

A diplomat's audience isn't really the same as a politician's though. Different tactics are neccessary. A politician's audience is large mass of people and the goal is to persuade 50%+1 of them. A diplomat's audience is a much smaller crowd and the goal is to persuade 100% of them.

---

good point.

not to mention, a politician's audience is usually fellow countrymen.

strongly stated opinions probably would just piss off foreign dignitaries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

A diplomat's audience isn't really the same as a politician's though. Different tactics are neccessary. A politician's audience is large mass of people and the goal is to persuade 50%+1 of them. A diplomat's audience is a much smaller crowd and the goal is to persuade 100% of them.

---

In that context it makes a lot more sense. They should probably have added it to the question though. :lol

Ouch...

I missed six. Some of my history isn't so hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yeah, that currency question was poorly worded.


Is the first "320" the amount of dollars you have? Or the amount of foreign currency? And when they ask how much the "original" amount changed, are they also including the money you "spent" or not?

Edit: I'm retarded! It says so in the question. I kept reading "currency" as "country". :lol

---

LOL...

There were a few questions that you had to watch the wording on. Easy once you think about "exactly" what they are saying. Not assuming.

I missed the artist question, guessed the river. Didn't have a clue about the artist. The correct answer for the river would have been my second guess. Two questions with defined wording screwed me up because I didn't cheat, to look them up.

I think that the State dep't. exam is one of the most difficult in the government. The wording on some of these was puposely obtuse, I think, simply to see if the respondent could think through the issue.


The currency question was purposely awkward, I think.

The 'persuasive speech' question would have been familiar to anyone familiar with debate judging in high school or college.

I missed the one on the river from Germany to the Black Sea. Had no idea.
Guessed the volga but I was wrong.

Got the other 19 right mostly because I'm so old I lived through most of the events.

I've heard of a lot of folks a lot smarter than me who couldn't get through the State Department test. I think the CSM version is a "State Department Lite".

14 of 20. Couple of boneheaded misses, couple of lucky guesses. I was tripped up by some of the wording.

15 of 20. Missed some of the history ones and of course the art one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I think that the State dep't. exam is one of the most difficult in the government. The wording on some of these was puposely obtuse, I think, simply to see if the respondent could think through the issue.


The currency question was purposely awkward, I think.

The 'persuasive speech' question would have been familiar to anyone familiar with debate judging in high school or college.

I missed the one on the river from Germany to the Black Sea. Had no idea.
Guessed the volga but I was wrong.

Got the other 19 right mostly because I'm so old I lived through most of the events.

---

You got 19 right? :wow

As for the river, one just needs a familiarity with Stauss. :)

"An der Schoene Blaue Donau"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I've heard of a lot of folks a lot smarter than me who couldn't get through the State Department test. I think the CSM version is a "State Department Lite".

---

Yup. Only 60 questions though. Not too onerous. I would guess the other steps in the process would also weed out a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You got 19 right? :wow

As for the river, one just needs a familiarity with Stauss. :)

"An der Schoene Blaue Donau"

---

:lolWell, yeah, but like I said, I lived through most of this stuff.

You know, I know about Strauss and the Blue Danube, but I didn't know it went to the black sea. So what I was thinking was "what river do I know is in Russia (black sea) so I came up with Volga. Totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yup. Only 60 questions though. Not too onerous. I would guess the other steps in the process would also weed out a few.

---

You may be right, but I would expect that whereas the CSM version asked about the House Ways and Means Committee as a test of an applicant's knowledge of the structure of the legislative process, the real test would ask something about some really obscure committee or sub-committee that funds state department issues.

I got 3 wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yup. Only 60 questions though. Not too onerous. I would guess the other steps in the process would also weed out a few.

---

I wonder what a passing score for this test is? A typical government job requires only 70%...

16 out of 20, but I missed that Fox and the Grapes question when I had no business getting it wrong. :(

So I really got 17 right, tbh :p

That currency question was worded oddly too.

EDIT: 60 questions in 40 minutes is the challenge, not the questions themselves. I think most people could get half of the questions right if they had a lot of time, but working through it on a time limit is all about how fast you decipher the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

That currency question was worded oddly too.

---

I think that's intentional, since a diplomat would likely encounter translation and cultural differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's intentional, since a diplomat would likely encounter translation and cultural differences.

---

Seriously, that might be it. It was written like a bad translation haha

13/20

Why is the answer to this

Quote:

---

Which of the following is an example of extrinsic motivation?

---

this

Quote:

---

An actor gives a great performance in the hopes of winning an Academy Award.

---

and not this

Quote:

---

An activist gives a speech decrying an unfair act by his government.

---

?

What's the difference between the two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pero

Why is the answer to this


this


and not this

?

What's the difference between the two?

---

I didn't try to figure out the difference, but I did answer the second as well. Our understanding of extrinsic motivation must not be the same as theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

There were a few questions that you had to watch the wording on. Easy once you think about "exactly" what they are saying. Not assuming.

I missed the artist question, guessed the river. Didn't have a clue about the artist. The correct answer for the river would have been my second guess. Two questions with defined wording screwed me up because I didn't cheat, to look them up.

---

I almost missed the artist question, until I caught the "abstract" qualifier. And yeah, I picked the Rhine instead of the Danube. I had a few 50/50 questions, some I got right, some I didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pero

Why is the answer to this


this


and not this

?

What's the difference between the two?

---

Well, extrinsic motivation is motivation from an outside source. In this case, the motivation to win may be INTRINSIC, but it's validated by an EXTRINSIC source.

The other three answers are all examples of a person motivated intrinsically to do something. The actor may not necessarily care about the role, but cares about the attention/Grammy he will receive from external sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Well, extrinsic motivation is motivation from an outside source. In this case, the motivation to win may be INTRINSIC, but it's validated by an EXTRINSIC source.

The other three answers are all examples of a person motivated intrinsically to do something. The actor may not necessarily care about the role, but cares about the attention/Grammy he will receive from external sources.

---

Activism isn't always personal. It becomes how one believes in the issue, and is addressing an external source. I guess right or wrong, the act makes activists feel better.

That was a difficult one for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Activism isn't always personal. It becomes how one believes in the issue, and is addressing an external source. I guess right or wrong, the act makes activists feel better.

That was a difficult one for me.

---

I had the same thought process and missed the question. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Activism isn't always personal. It becomes how one believes in the issue, and is addressing an external source. I guess right or wrong, the act makes activists feel better.

That was a difficult one for me.

---

Right, but I think in this case, they're trying to say that the activist does things out of a personal desire/motivation to see things changed. (Self-actualization or something like that.)

The whole point to me was that the activist's actions are validated whether or not government is changed, because the activist is still espousing what he/she believes. That doesn't seem to be the case for the actor (as the question seemed to be worded that the actor is doing the role for the possibility of a Grammy, not because he think it personally validates him.)

Look at the way the question was worded:

"An actor gives a great performance in the hopes of winning an Academy award"

He's not doing it because he thinks the subject is powerful, because he personally believes in the role he played, etc etc. He's acting well for an outside confirmation of his abilities.

The activist isn't saying, "I'll rail against the government in hopes that the audience will agree with me."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Look at the way the question was worded:

"An actor gives a great performance in the hopes of winning an Academy award"

He's not doing it because he thinks the subject is powerful, because he personally believes in the role he played, etc etc. He's acting well for an outside confirmation of his abilities.

The activist isn't saying, "I'll rail against the government in hopes that the audience will agree with me."

---

But he is doing it for himself. the activist is more likely doing it for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

But he is doing it for himself. the activist is more likely doing it for others.

---

Let me dumb it down.

It's the difference between a kid doing well at school because they want to achieve their best, and a kid doing well at school because their parents told them they could get a new toy if they got straight A's.

They both are "doing it for themselves", but the second kid wouldn't be personally motivated without outside influences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Let me dumb it down.

It's the difference between a kid doing well at school because they want to achieve their best, and a kid doing well at school because their parents told them they could get a new toy if they got straight A's.

They both are "doing it for themselves", but the second kid wouldn't be personally motivated without outside influences.

---

I get that. My problem is over reading the idea. I am to take the question an an actual fact that some deity level of understanding knows the reasons to be as said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I get that. My problem is over reading the idea. I am to take the question an an actual fact that some deity level of understanding knows the reasons to be as said.

---

This is why most tests say "Choose the BEST answer" and not "Choose the CORRECT answer". :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

This is why most tests say "Choose the BEST answer" and not "Choose the CORRECT answer". :lol

---

I never was good at most tests. I am great with factual based tests, but not those that require you to choose from someone else's perspective, or one that makes you think in such manners.

When I was a senior in high school, I never took an electronics elective. Studied it at home, but never in school. I challenged the Electronics II class and took a term of Electronics III. My passing score was 97%. That is scientific factual stuff though. I get screwed up with more abstract concepts. When I took my testing for my current employment, I got a 95.7%. There were some rather interesting problems as well. Give me something that is even partially abstract, and I am lucky to get 80% or so. In the Army, my MOS qualification scores were always in the 90's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Well, extrinsic motivation is motivation from an outside source. In this case, the motivation to win may be INTRINSIC, but it's validated by an EXTRINSIC source.

The other three answers are all examples of a person motivated intrinsically to do something. The actor may not necessarily care about the role, but cares about the attention/Grammy he will receive from external sources.

---

That one was not too hard to figure. you had to know what the word extrinsic meant and compare all the answers you could tell one had outside motivation( winning an award ).

16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Well, extrinsic motivation is motivation from an outside source. In this case, the motivation to win may be INTRINSIC, but it's validated by an EXTRINSIC source.

The other three answers are all examples of a person motivated intrinsically to do something. The actor may not necessarily care about the role, but cares about the attention/Grammy he will receive from external sources.

---

That's how I understood it too, and answered correctly.