Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

SDI SD0-101 Exam - Topic 2 Question 95 Discussion

Actual exam question for SDI's SD0-101 exam

Question #: 95
Topic #: 2

[All SD0-101 Questions]

Which of these options is NOT part of the correct procedure for putting a user on hold?

AAsking the user for permission to remotely access their system

BCommunicating a valid reason for putting the user on hold

CGiving the user a reasonable time frame

DRegularly updating the user about the wait-time

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Eun at Aug 25, 2024, 05:30 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SD0-101 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Na

9 months ago

I thought all of these were standard practice!

upvoted 0 times

...

Fidelia

9 months ago

Wait, are we really expected to give a time frame? Sounds weird.

upvoted 0 times

...

Janine

9 months ago

Totally agree with Alica, D seems off.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alica

9 months ago

I think D is the one that doesn't belong here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Quinn

10 months ago

Option A is definitely part of the procedure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kayleigh

10 months ago

I’m a bit confused about option C. I thought giving a timeframe was important, but maybe it’s not always required?

upvoted 0 times

...

Michel

10 months ago

I’m leaning towards option A being the one that doesn’t fit. I recall a similar question where we discussed the importance of communication during holds.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lauryn

10 months ago

I feel like option D might not be necessary. I practiced a question where we just needed to give a reason and a timeframe.

upvoted 0 times

...

Irma

10 months ago

I think I remember that asking for permission is usually part of the process, but I'm not entirely sure if it's essential for putting someone on hold.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alexia

10 months ago

This is a tricky one. I think the key is to focus on the standard protocol for putting a user on hold. Asking for remote access doesn't seem to fit with that, so I'm going to go with that as the answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hyun

10 months ago

I'm a little confused by this question. I know the proper steps for putting a user on hold, but I'm not sure which one is the odd one out. I'll have to review my notes and think it through.

upvoted 0 times

...

Roxane

10 months ago

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. I'll have to think it through carefully. Asking for permission to remotely access their system doesn't seem like part of the correct procedure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tomoko

10 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question about the proper procedure for putting a user on hold. I'm pretty confident I know the answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jolene

10 months ago

Okay, let me see here. Communicating a valid reason, giving a reasonable time frame, and regularly updating the user all seem like important steps. I'm guessing the one that's not part of the correct procedure is asking for remote access.

upvoted 0 times

...

Luisa

11 months ago

This question looks straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the segment reporting requirements correctly before answering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Melissia

11 months ago

This is a good test of our understanding of measure types and outlier interpretations. I'll carefully review the answer choices and select the one that best matches the direction of improvement described in the question.

upvoted 0 times

...

Raylene

1 year ago

Wait, we're supposed to put the user on hold? I thought we were supposed to put them on mute and see how long it takes them to notice.

upvoted 0 times

Millie

1 year ago

User 3: Don't forget to update the user regularly about the wait-time.

upvoted 0 times

...

Linwood

1 year ago

User 2: Yeah, and we need to give them a valid reason for putting them on hold.

upvoted 0 times

...

Quentin

1 year ago

User 1: No, we're supposed to ask for permission to access their system.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Dallas

1 year ago

Regularly updating the user about the wait-time? Ain't nobody got time for that! I'll just leave them guessing.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eleni

1 year ago

Giving the user a reasonable time frame? Psh, I'll just say 'It'll be a while, just hang tight' and call it a day.

upvoted 0 times

Aleshia

1 year ago

D) Regularly updating the user about the wait-time

upvoted 0 times

...

Josephine

1 year ago

C) Giving the user a reasonable time frame

upvoted 0 times

...

Karina

1 year ago

B) Communicating a valid reason for putting the user on hold

upvoted 0 times

...

Johnna

1 year ago

A) Asking the user for permission to remotely access their system

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Hannah

1 year ago

Communicating a valid reason? That's just common courtesy. Who wants to be left hanging without an explanation?

upvoted 0 times

...

Tenesha

1 year ago

Asking the user for permission to remotely access their system? That's a big no-no! I'll just take control and see what's up. What could go wrong?

upvoted 0 times

...

Queenie

1 year ago

I think option D) Regularly updating the user about the wait-time is not part of the correct procedure. It's important to keep the user informed to manage their expectations.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nguyet

1 year ago

I agree with Hermila. It's important to respect the user's privacy and get their permission before accessing their system.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hermila

1 year ago

I think the correct answer is A) Asking the user for permission to remotely access their system.

upvoted 0 times

...