What is the consequence of two-thirds of people being oral learners while most workers use literate methods?

• A. It makes it easy for oral learners to understand
• B. It has no effect
• C. It makes it difficult for oral learners to hear and understand
• D. It makes them prefer literacy

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is that when most people learn best by listening and speaking (oral learners) but the workplace primarily uses written materials (literate methods), there’s a mismatch in how information is delivered and how people process it. If two-thirds of the population learns best through oral means, yet training and communication rely on reading and writing, those oral learners end up getting information in a format that’s not as accessible to them. They may have trouble hearing the information presented verbally in a context where it’s mostly written, and they may struggle to understand and retain it without adequate spoken explanations, discussions, or oral summaries. This is why the consequence is that it makes it difficult for oral learners to hear and understand.

In practice, this highlights the need to balance modes of communication—include oral explanations, storytelling, discussions, and audio resources alongside written materials—so that the message reaches and resonates with the majority.

The other options don’t fit because this situation does not make it easy for oral learners to understand, nor does it have no effect. And it doesn’t inherently cause them to prefer literacy; the issue is the mismatch between learning preferences and delivery methods, not a shift in preference.