Minnesota Electrical Act.

[slavan]

This question is based on one of the Minnesota Electrical Act. The Act states,

"When a contractor's license is held by an individual, partnership, limited liability company or an officer of the corporation,respectively is not the responsible master electrician or power limited technician of record, all requests for inspection shall be requested by a reponsible master."

The question was worded as such; When a contractor's license is held by an individual, partnership, limited liability company or an officer of the corporation, respectively is not the responsible master electrician or power limited technician of record, what must occur? Choose 2 correct answer.

1) A contractor shall hire a responsible master to signed
request for the inspection.

2) Journeyman on the job shall signed request for the
inspection.

3) An individual, partnership, limited liability company,
or corporation and the individual, one of the partners, one
of the members, the employee, or an officer fo the corporation shall
signed the request for the inspection, but it must be
notarized.

4) A reponsible master shall fill out a W-2 form and file
it with the state.

Logically, the question I think is worded oddly. Based on logic, I think the correct choice would be number 1 and 2.

A statement of a master filling out a W-2 form and filing doesn't make sense. If you read the question of what was asked; the question is flawed.

Your thoughts?

 

[iwire]

1 and 4.

 

[slavan]

1 and 4.

I had 1 and 4 but change to 1 and 2 at last moment. Logically, a responsible master filling out a W-2 form is just that. He/she is filling out a W-2 form. The responsible master is not requesting the inspection.

Perhaps the guy making up the question is looking at the word "responsible master".

The question could have been worded better as pertain to the Electrical Act.

 

[iwire]

The responsible master has to be the one requesting the inspection.

I am assuming the W-2 part has to do with proving the responsible master is actually an employee of the contractor not just a guy off the street taking a quick handful of cash for an inspection request.

 

[slavan]

iwire,

you have a point there. I'm looking at the question too much in context literally.