ChaseDream

标题: 【求讲解】OG16。58题 [打印本页]

作者: jennyli2014 时间: 2015-8-23 11:29
标题: 【求讲解】OG16。58题
【求讲解】OG1658.  To reduce productivity losses from employees calling in sick, Corporation Ximplemented a new policy requiring employees to come into work unless theywere so sick that they had to go to a doctor. But a year after the policy wasimplemented, a study found that Corporation X’s overall productivity losses due toreported employee illnesses had increased.
  Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the policy produced thereverse of its intended effect?
   (A) After the policy was implemented, employees more frequently went tothe doctor when they felt sick.
      (B) Before the policy was implemented, employees who were not sick at alloften called in sick.    (C) Employees coming into work when sick often infect many of coworkers.
(D) Unusually few employees became genuinely sick during the year afterthe policy was implemented.
(E) There are many other factors besides employee illness that canadversely affect productivity.

我觉得A也对啊，不太明白OG解析，求大神解答，多谢！【求讲解】

作者: echizenlover 时间: 2015-8-23 14:19
P1: 为了减少由于请病假带来的工作效率损失，X实施了新的政策
P2：政策规定，除非严重到要去看医生，否则不能请病假
C：由生病引起的效率损失更高

解题关键在于找到请病假与效率高低之间的关系。
A：并没有对看病和效率的关系进行说明，常去看病不能作为效率低下的直接原因
C：由于不能请假但生病--感染其他同事，从而影响了整体工作效率
B：strengthen the argument
D: irrelevant
E: irrelevant

不知道这样讲清楚嘛。

作者: grace.yinan 时间: 2015-8-23 19:25
我觉得A可以理解为，即使看病频率高了，但可能去看的人少了

作者: jennyli2014 时间: 2015-8-23 22:32

echizenlover 发表于 2015-8-23 14:19
P1: 为了减少由于请病假带来的工作效率损失，X实施了新的政策
P2：政策规定，除非严重到要去看医生，否则不 ...

感谢解析，但是如果LZ认为看病与效率无关，那么生病的人传染给同事导致整体效率低，是因为导致更多人去看病以致于缺勤率更低；还是就是生病带病工作效率低呢？

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2015-8-23 23:29
题干问best explain why the policy produced the reverse of its intended effect。什么是 intended effect呢？

To reduce productivity losses from employees calling in sick-也就是减少只打个电话来谎称生病的带来的效率损失（大家上学的时候可能都干过）

什么是reverse of its intended effect呢？ reported employee illnesses had increased

A-After the policy was implemented, employees more frequently went to the doctor when they felt sick.这不就是its intended effect吗？如何解释reverse of its intended effect呢？

C直接给出了reported employee illnesses had increased的原因：带病工作，传染了。

作者: erine0816 时间: 2015-10-19 11:22

jennyli2014 发表于 2015-8-23 22:32
感谢解析，但是如果LZ认为看病与效率无关，那么生病的人传染给同事导致整体效率低，是因为导致更多人去看 ...

您好，剛剛我也對這題的A有問題，在gmatclub那邊看到有人對Ａ選項這樣解釋：
「This simply implies that the people have started going to the doctor more frequently. (Not more number of people are going to the doctor)」
我個人理解是，以前政策實行前，請病假的人不一定會看病；
新政策實行後，真正生病的人都去看病了，因此頻率上升。
但是生病的人的數量不一定會因此上升！
所以也無法直接推測生產效率受到影響

作者: jennyli2014 时间: 2015-10-19 23:43

erine0816 发表于 2015-10-19 11:22
您好，剛剛我也對這題的A有問題，在gmatclub那邊看到有人對Ａ選項這樣解釋：
「This simply implies that ...

OG的解释最后看明白了：两个方向可以解释less productivity: 因为看病导致了缺勤率增高；因为生病没去看病带病上班导致了工作效率降低。答案C解释了第二个方向。第一个选项还是不太好理解，你的解释有些道理-）

作者: Sticker_399 时间: 2016-3-14 11:08
我觉得A选项应该是因为公司只允许严重到看医生才允许请假，所以如果病情不严重的话，职员会先去看医生把病治好，而不是为了请假把病拖严重，所以看医生应该是在休息时间去看的，而不是在上班时间看的，所以缺勤率也不会低

作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-3-14 19:03
这题当初做时，也做错了，想了好长时间才想明白：number 和 rate 是不能同类比较的。

productivity = present employees number / total employees number
present employees = total employees number - absent (sick) employees number

productivity 下降只能是 present employees number 下降了 --> absent (sick) employees number 增加了。

A选项给出的是 more frequently, 可以是同一个employee 去了好几次，这中情况也是 more frequently 但是 absent (sick) employees number 并不一定增加，如果带入上述productivity 的计算公式中，结论是不能成立的。

C 给出了可能造成 absent (sick) employees number 增加的情况，所以对

我表达能力有限，希望解释的大家都能看懂

作者: Nievesma 时间: 2016-7-6 21:17
这道题我不仅做错了（选了A），而且看第二遍的时候还被卡住了。我可以理解答案C，但是很久没有想明白A的问题所在，所以找到了CD来。结合OG，楼上各位的讨论，尤其是9＃emmahiggins09的解释，感觉清晰了很多，也试着来说明一下，还请大家多多指教。

最近在专项突破CR，看了好多NN的经验，发现找到CR的逻辑链非常关键，因为逻辑链明确了，有助于直接推测出答案，即便不能预测答案也可以有效排除干扰项(irrelevant or out of scope, 如mindfree大神所讲)。
根据我的理解，这道题的主要逻辑链在于解释why the policy (employees are required to come into work unless they were so sick that had to go to a doctor) caused the increase of the productivity loss from reported employee illness.
OG16 p.599页 reasoning部分给出了两个可能的因素，一个是“factors that caused the policy to increase employee absenteeism from reported illness”, 另一个是“to reduce the employees’ productivity at work as a result of reported illness”。答案C显然是贴合了第二个因素。
让我们接下来再看OG给答案A的解释：“Even though the policy required sick employees to consult a doctor, there is no reason to think that employees’ doing so would have made them less productive than they would otherwise have been when absent from work.”
我们可以来分析下这句话，会发现它把“employee consult a doctor” 和 “absent from work”在做比较。即使“employee consult a doctor”也不能像“absent from work”那样made them less productive。再结合前面reasoning里给出的absenteeism才是导致生产率低的原因（详见9＃解释），而员工more frequently went to the doctor when they felt sick并不能说明absenteeism增加了（详见9＃解释），故而无法best explain题干问题。

作者: 豆腐店的86 时间: 2016-7-23 23:36

alzn2765 发表于 2015-8-23 23:29
题干问best explain why the policy produced the reverse of its intended effect。什么是 intended effec ...

同意！

作者: cuikaka 时间: 2017-7-10 09:49
同意#9 这道题说的是 rate 和 number，# of reported illness = % of claiming ill * # of employee feeling sick

new policy实施前，% claiming ill很高因为没有医生去verify，真病与假病掺杂，%很高
new policy实施以后，% claiming ill应该是不变（也许都是真病）或者降低了（也许过去有很多谎称）
——总体来说，new policy是对 % of claiming ill造成影响，# of employee feeling sick却在argument中没有提及

当%降低，但# of reported illness仍然在增加时，就可以预料是 # of employee feeling sick在增加了

A - 对 % 和 # of employee feeling sick都没有造成影响
C - 正是在说 # of employee feeling sick在增加，因为更多人被传染

作者: frankzheng43 时间: 2017-7-15 20:02

erine0816 发表于 2015-10-19 11:22
您好，剛剛我也對這題的A有問題，在gmatclub那邊看到有人對Ａ選項這樣解釋：
「This simply implies that ...

我觉得是这样的：
Before the policy, they might have taken the leave without going to the doctor, but now in order to take the leave they go to the doctor.
This does not direct us towards an increase in the number of people going to the doctor.
在政策前，某个人不看医生就请假，政策后，某个人为了请假去看医生了。但是政策前后都A的结果都是请假，所以整个公司的效率并没有说降低了。

作者: 西瓜美少女 时间: 2017-10-9 14:30

frankzheng43 发表于 2017-7-15 20:02
我觉得是这样的：
Before the policy, they might have taken the leave without going to the doctor, b ...

同意！

作者: Cybill920 时间: 2019-4-24 11:30

frankzheng43 发表于 2017-7-15 20:02
我觉得是这样的：
Before the policy, they might have taken the leave without going to the doctor, b ...

同意！

作者: abbylung 时间: 2020-4-15 15:17
我的想法是，

P：如果不是严重到必须去看医生，就必须来上班
C：但是，员工生病增加，总生产力下降

Gap：该前提肯定导致生病的人数增加，才会导致总生产力下降

A 实施后，员工看医生更多了。是1个员工看医生更多了，还是30个员工看医生更多了
C 生小病的员工经常感染许多同事。导致生病的人数增加

作者: 皮皮要打怪 时间: 2020-5-15 19:01

frankzheng43 发表于 2017-7-15 20:02
我觉得是这样的：
Before the policy, they might have taken the leave without going to the doctor, b ...

同意！

作者: 拉美 时间: 2020-7-28 23:09
我认为本道题最大的干扰选项就在于A,题目中已经说了，unless they were so sick that they had to go to a doctor ，这一点是作为题目的前提，CR推理过程有一大禁忌就是不能去否定给定前提，A 选项说more frequently went to the doctor,很明显根据新政策，不可能更频繁去医院

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)