Refer to the exhibit. An engineer is trying to block the route to 192.168.2.2 from the routing table by using the configuration that is shown. The route must still be present in the routing table as…

Adding `permit 20` to the route-map without an explicit `deny` for 192.168.2.2 would not block the route if it's already matched by a preceding `permit` statement.

Using a prefix list instead of an access list is an alternative for route matching, but the action (permit/deny) in the route-map sequence is what determines blocking, not the matching method itself.

In a route-map, a `permit` statement allows a matched route to proceed with the route-map's action (e.g., redistribution, filtering), whereas a `deny` statement blocks the matched route, preventing it from undergoing the route-map's action. Changing sequence 10 from `permit` to `deny` for the route 192.168.2.2 would effectively block it from the route-map's influence, while allowing it to remain in the OSPF routing process if the route-map is used for outbound redistribution.

Using an extended access list changes the matching criteria but does not inherently block a route; the `permit` or `deny` action in the route-map is crucial for blocking.