Assessment On: Closing Customers Faster by Slowing Down by Andy Elliott

Welcome to Your Assessment Test

Topic: 10-Sales Training // Closing Customers Faster by Slowing Down by Andy Elliott

This assessment is designed to evaluate your understanding of the key concepts covered in Closing Customers Faster by Slowing Down by Andy Elliott. Topics include the distinction between advancing a sale and closing a sale, identifying the true cause of objections using the binary objection diagnostic, and understanding why slowing down communication at critical moments can increase trust, clarity, and commitment.

The assessment also covers effective closing strategies such as the sniper versus machine gun principle of communication, the Google-it close, the commitment evidence close, the third-party close technique, and methods for helping prospects gain the confidence needed to make decisions they are already inclined to make. These concepts are designed to improve closing effectiveness while reducing resistance and pressure during the sales process.

Assessment Instructions

The assessment consists of 10 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs).
Each question carries 1 mark.
Only one option is correct for each question.
There are no negative marks for incorrect answers.
Questions skipped or left unanswered will be considered as 0 marks.
Retakes are not permitted once the assessment has been submitted.
The total duration of the assessment is 15 minutes.
The timer will start automatically once you enter your Name and Email Address and click on "Start Test".
Ensure you have a stable internet connection and complete the assessment within the allotted time.
Read each question carefully and submit your responses before the timer expires.

All the best!

Name

Andy says the commitment evidence close — 'you wouldn't have made the call if you weren't willing to make a decision' — reframes the purchase as following through rather than deciding. Why is following through psychologically easier than deciding for most prospects?

Following through requires less information than deciding

Following through is easier because the financial commitment is already made

Deciding feels like a new risk with uncertain outcomes — the brain's loss aversion system resists it. Following through on an existing commitment feels like honoring something already chosen — consistency not risk. By showing the prospect they already made the commitment when they clicked the ad or filled out the form Andy shifts the frame from 'should I do this?' to 'I already decided — I'm just completing it' which removes the primary source of resistance

Following through only works when the prospect is already in a positive emotional state

What does Andy mean by 'let me lend you the courage to make the decision'?

Offering a money-back guarantee to reduce financial risk

Acknowledging that the prospect wants to say yes but is held back by fear and positioning the salesperson as someone who will carry the courage they lack just long enough for them to make the decision — because the salesperson has seen the outcome and knows it is right for them

Asking the prospect to make the decision on behalf of their family

Pressuring the prospect by saying the offer will expire soon

Andy says 'how did that feel?' to reconnect the prospect with a positive past experience. How does emotional recall work as a motivational force in closing and why is a past positive experience more powerful than a future promise?

A past positive experience the prospect actually lived is stored in their emotional memory — they can physically re-access the feelings associated with it. When Andy asks 'how did it feel when you were fit and could wear anything?' the prospect does not imagine a feeling they re-experience a real one. Future promises ask the prospect to believe something they have not felt yet; emotional recall asks them to feel something they already know is real

Past experiences are more motivating because they require less imagination

Past experiences are more credible than future promises because they are factually verifiable

Emotional recall only works if the prospect had a recent relevant experience

Andy's entire training session demonstrates that closing is not a technique applied at the end of a call but a state that is cultivated throughout the entire conversation. How does this perspective unify all the closing principles taught across the full series — from Video 1's rejection mindset through Video 13's slow-down close — into a single coherent philosophy of what sales mastery actually is?

Sales mastery is the ability to close difficult prospects who say no multiple times

Sales mastery is memorizing the correct response to every possible objection

Sales mastery is the ability to memorize and execute the largest number of closing techniques

Sales mastery is the ongoing cultivation of a specific set of conditions throughout every interaction: the prospect's guard is down their emotional drivers are activated their uncertainty has been replaced by certainty about the outcome and the decision feels like their own idea rather than a salesperson's agenda. Every technique across the series — from rejection reframing to tonality to NEPQ questions to yes-chains to emotional recall to slowing down — serves this single purpose. Mastery is not the techniques themselves but the ability to orchestrate these conditions seamlessly across the full arc of a conversation adjusting fluidly based on where the prospect is emotionally at each moment

According to Andy when a prospect says 'I need to think about it' after all numbers are on the table what are the only two real reasons behind this objection?

They need to speak to their spouse or they have a different product in mind

They want to compare prices with a competitor or they need more time

They are not the decision maker or they cannot afford the product

They either no longer want the product — which Andy dismisses as unlikely if they got this far — or something within the numbers is concerning them. Andy asks them to identify which of three specific numbers is the issue

Andy distinguishes between advancing the sale and closing the client. This distinction implies that every stage of a conversation has a specific limited objective. How does misidentifying the objective at any stage — attempting to close when you should advance or advancing when you should close — damage the overall trajectory of the sale?

Attempting to close before the prospect has enough information and emotional investment triggers premature resistance that becomes increasingly difficult to dissolve — the prospect's objection at stage two becomes more entrenched than it would have been at stage four. Conversely continuing to advance when the prospect is ready to close creates unnecessary delay that can cool their emotional momentum and introduce new doubts. Stage misidentification is therefore not just inefficient — it actively damages conversion probability by triggering resistance at the wrong moment or missing readiness windows

The distinction only applies to face-to-face sales — on calls everything happens in one stage

Attempting to close too early wastes time but has no other impact

Stage misidentification only matters in high-ticket sales where the process is longer

Andy demonstrates the think-it-over reframe — 'I haven't given you enough information not to think about it' — which agrees with the objection rather than fighting it. Why is agreeing with an objection more effective than countering it at the advance-the-sale stage?

Agreeing works because it delays the close and gives the salesperson more time

When you agree with an objection you remove the adversarial dynamic — the prospect was prepared for pushback and gets none which disarms their defensiveness. By agreeing that they don't have enough to think about yet you simultaneously validate them and create a logical reason to move to the next stage. Countering creates resistance; agreeing creates collaboration

Agreeing makes the prospect feel respected which makes them more likely to buy

Agreeing is only effective with analytical prospects who need logic

Andy's binary diagnostic — 'it's usually one of two things' — narrows the think-it-over objection to either the product or the numbers. Why does narrowing to two specific options produce more actionable information than asking an open-ended 'what's on your mind?'

Open-ended questions take too long to answer in a closing context

Narrowing to two options reduces the likelihood of the prospect revealing an unworkable objection

An open-ended question allows the prospect to give a vague or deflecting answer — 'I just need time' — that gives the salesperson nothing to work with. A binary diagnostic forces the prospect to commit to one of two specific categories either of which reveals exactly what objection to address. Precision in the question produces precision in the answer

Binary questions are more polite than open-ended questions

What is the 'Google it close' that Andy demonstrates with the water treatment example?

Googling competitor prices in front of the prospect to show yours is better

Asking the prospect to Google the specific problem — nitrates in water — right there during the conversation so they discover the danger themselves rather than being told by the salesperson

Sending the prospect a link to product reviews after the call

Showing the prospect your Google reviews and ratings

What does Andy say about 'research shows' as a phrase in closing?

It should only be used when you can cite a specific study

It is an authority frame that adds credibility to a claim — saying 'research shows' signals to the prospect's brain that what follows is backed by evidence rather than just the salesperson's opinion

It is a technique for delaying the close while building more value

It is a manipulative phrase that prospects distrust