Urgent help please

The timber-marking crew split into two informal groups soon after work in the forest began. One group was composed of the three professional foresters who had been assigned to the crew from a distant district. They constantly complained about the weather, the inadequacy of equipment, and their leaders. They found the leader to be a taskmaster who worked them too hard, his assistant a busybody who was too fussy about quality. The quantity of work performed by these three ranged between one third and one half of that attained by the other crewmen who were considered to be performing at a normal pace. Efforts at retraining produced no change. Absences among the three were high and excuses, though plentiful, often proved to be fabricated. The three men kept to themselves, building their separate fire at lunch time. The rest of the crew tended to stick together. Although some of these men lacked the skill and training possessed by the professional foresters, the men helped each other and production and quality were high. The leaders, feeling rejected by the three professional foresters, ate with the subprofessionals. The leaders were angered by the three recalcitrant crewmen. They interpreted the latter's ehavior as an attempt to be reassigned to a more pleasant job. Since no other positions were open and because the leaders disliked the thought of giving in to what they considered a play for preferential treatment, they told the three men they would have to stay out in the cold, work or not. Conditions did not improve. Postprediction Analysis Refer to your predictions at the end of Part 1. How closely do they match the information above? Do inaccuracies in your prediction reflect inadequate analysis? If so, explain the analytical failure. If not, what additional information would you have needed in Part 1 to improve your predictive accuracy and how would you have used that information? The timber-marking crew split into two informal groups soon after work in the forest began. One group was composed of the three professional foresters who had been assigned to the crew from a distant district. They constantly complained about the weather, the inadequacy of equipment, and their leaders. They found the leader to be a taskmaster who worked them too hard, his assistant a busybody who was too fussy about quality. The quantity of work performed by these three ranged between one third and one half of that attained by the other crewmen who were considered to be performing at a normal pace. Efforts at retraining produced no change. Absences among the three were high and excuses, though plentiful, often proved to be fabricated. The three men kept to themselves, building their separate fire at lunch time. The rest of the crew tended to stick together. Although some of these men lacked the skill and training possessed by the professional foresters, the men helped each other and production and quality were high. The leaders, feeling rejected by the three professional foresters, ate with the subprofessionals. The leaders were angered by the three recalcitrant crewmen. They interpreted the latter's ehavior as an attempt to be reassigned to a more pleasant job. Since no other positions were open and because the leaders disliked the thought of giving in to what they considered a play for preferential treatment, they told the three men they would have to stay out in the cold, work or not. Conditions did not improve. Postprediction Analysis Refer to your predictions at the end of Part 1. How closely do they match the information above? Do inaccuracies in your prediction reflect inadequate analysis? If so, explain the analytical failure. If not, what additional information would you have needed in Part 1 to improve your predictive accuracy and how would you have used that information