How would you describe an implausible agreement?

How would you describe an implausible agreement?

• A. Hard to believe
• B. Quite reasonable
• C. Clear-cut
• D. Very logical

Answer: (A)

An implausible agreement is characterized by being hard to believe, as it suggests a lack of credibility or realism in what is being proposed or accepted. In the context of agreements, plausibility refers to the extent to which the terms or conditions can be realistically accepted or executed by the parties involved. When an agreement is deemed implausible, it typically contains elements that contradict common sense, legal norms, or factual evidence, making it difficult for others to accept it as viable. The other choices describe characteristics that are contrary to what an implausible agreement embodies. An agreement that is quite reasonable, clear-cut, or very logical indicates that it is acceptable and sound, which directly contrasts with the notion of being hard to believe. These other descriptors imply a level of simplicity or sensibility that would naturally exclude the idea of implausibility.

An implausible agreement is characterized by being hard to believe, as it suggests a lack of credibility or realism in what is being proposed or accepted. In the context of agreements, plausibility refers to the extent to which the terms or conditions can be realistically accepted or executed by the parties involved. When an agreement is deemed implausible, it typically contains elements that contradict common sense, legal norms, or factual evidence, making it difficult for others to accept it as viable.

The other choices describe characteristics that are contrary to what an implausible agreement embodies. An agreement that is quite reasonable, clear-cut, or very logical indicates that it is acceptable and sound, which directly contrasts with the notion of being hard to believe. These other descriptors imply a level of simplicity or sensibility that would naturally exclude the idea of implausibility.