ChaseDream

标题: OG16 60 Advertising by mail [打印本页]

作者: 白冬冬 时间: 2016-4-13 19:58
标题: OG16 60 Advertising by mail
Advertising by mail has become much less effective, with fewer consumers responding. Because consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of junk mail they receive, most discard almost all otters without considering them. Thus. an effective way tor corporations to improve response rates would be to more carefully target the individuals to whom they mail advertising, thereby cutting down on the amount oi junk mall each consumer receives.

Which of the following, if true, would most support this recommendation?

(A) There are cost effective means by which corporations that currently advertise by mail could improve response rates.

(B) Many successful corporations are already carefully targeting the individuals to whom they mail advertising.

(C) Any consumer who, immediately alter receiving an advertisement by mail, merely glances at it is very likely to discard it.

(D) Improvements in the quality of the advertising materials used in mail that is carefully targeted to individuals can improve the response rate for such mail.

(E) Response rates to carefully targeted advertisements by mail are considerably higher, on average, than response rates to most other forms of advertising.

发现并没有人问过，可能是太简单了，但是这是啥方法的加强啊？ OA： E
我选了B

作者: elusive 时间: 2016-4-14 01:27
A：在谈论其他方法，脱离主题。
B:其他企业的成功并不代表着每个企业都可以成功。这几个成功的企业没有代表性。
C：在谈论收件人的性质，收件人是不是很快删除没有关系。
D：说了其他方法，脱离主题
E：说了方案的有效性。

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-4-15 12:04
你这么想：
如果我要jusify一个方案是effective way to achieve certain goal, 是不是如果我可以证明这个方案跟其他方案比，这个方案是最好的就可以了？
假设有ABCDE5个方案，如果我可以证明A is more effective than BCDE to achieve certain goal，我现在说A is an effective way to achieve certain goal是不是更有底气了？
E就是这个意思。

用GWD的方法：
我现在如果说一个方案（more carefully target the individuals）好，我一定要说这个方案跟别的方案比怎么好吧？不管怎么样“这个方案”是不是一定必须出现在选项来里？我如果只说别的方案怎么好能行吗？单说别的方案再好，也不代表“这个方案”跟别的方案比就不好吧？好与不好一定都是比出来的。
A. 没说more carefully target the individuals
B. 说了more carefully target the individuals，留下
C. 没说more carefully target the individuals
D. 说了more carefully target the individuals，留下
E. 说了more carefully target the individuals，留下
排除两个，回看BDE
B. many successfull corporations用了“这个方案”不代表这个corporation用了也好使。many corporations和这个corporations之间有gap，杀
D. 在“这个方案”的基础之上再改进可以improve the response rate，没有与“其他方案”比较，只能说明这个方案可以达到improve the response rate的目的，无法证明“这个方案”更好。杀
E. 既有“这个方案”又有比较。正确。

当然你也可以直接通过没有没有“这个方案”和有没有比较两个条件，一步把E选出来。

作者: 疯狂的狐狸 时间: 2016-4-15 17:11

alzn2765 发表于 2016-4-15 12:04
你这么想：
如果我要jusify一个方案是effective way to achieve certain goal, 是不是如果我可以证明这个方 ...

大神解释得好棒我被一道题困住了转不过来弯可不可以请大神有空时帮忙看看去曼哈顿搜了解释看完还是不明白后面也有人有同样的疑问可素RON回避了这个疑问。。。。。

作者: 疯狂的狐狸 时间: 2016-4-15 17:12
借LZ的地盘再贴一下这题 Prep pack1的

In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Over the last few years, the number of Kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily. Therefore, the number of Kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more, on average, than do Kravonians with only one college degree.
B. The average number of years Kravonian college students remain enrolled before completing a degree has been increasing over the past several years.
C. Despite the increase in the number of Kravonians attending college, the percentage of the population attending college is lower in Kravonia than in most other countries.
D. In recent years, employers have been requiring college degrees for workers in jobs that were previously performed successfully by Kravonians who did not have college degrees.
E. For many years, employers in Kravonia have had difficulty finding enough college graduates to fill the high-paying jobs that were available.

the answer is B.
RON
the problem with this argument is that it takes the observation that "the number of Kravonians [size=14.0084px]enrolled in college has been growing steadily", and takes that observation to mean that the number of [size=14.0084px]graduates is going to increase in proportion.
choice (b) attacks this connection -- if students are taking longer to graduate from college, then the increased enrollment doesn't necessarily mean that there will be any more graduates! it's just a symptom of the fact that students are staying in school for longer.
for instance, if students take 4 years to graduate from college and college graduates 1000 students per year, then (not counting dropouts) that college's enrollment will be approximately 4000 students.
if students begin to take five years to graduate from college, then that same college will begin to have an enrollment of 5000 students -- even if it graduates the same number (1000) of students per year.

我的疑问和帖子后面那个同学的一样而且RON也没有针对这个疑惑进一步解释
我们的问题是：Ron, I am still a bit confused.
The argument says "will eventually be significant higher" and doesn't give a timeline. So even the students delay their graduations, they will "eventually" graduate(no evidence in the passage supports they will drop out). Therefore, B won't weaken the argument. What did I assume here?

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-4-15 17:59

疯狂的狐狸发表于 2016-4-15 17:12
借LZ的地盘再贴一下这题 Prep pack1的

In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college de ...

语义：
past few years是什么意思？过去几年。few years的意思是“没几年”，肯定不是“很多年”。
过去20年，甚至50年能用few years吗？明显不能。如果可以比，肯定是past few years有几年，in the future years也有相同数目的几年才能比吧？
过去5年比未来500年能比吗？比了也没有意义。
如果是过去几年跟未来几年比的话，因为学生毕业的时间越来越长，学校作为一个reservior的作用（节流）在短时期也就越来越明显。导致了在“未来几年“可以毕业的学生跟past few years相比变少了。
当然学校不可能永远不让学生毕业，10年之后，这些学生总归会毕业，等到那个时候few years的“期限”已过，已经不在我们的讨论范围里了。
你们问的这个情况：
1. 已经超出few years的范畴
2. 用many years的毕业生跟past few years的毕业生相比，无意义。

最后，我告诉你RON不回答的原因：
这题你觉得没答案吗？即使答案不完美，你是不是也要在5个里选一个出来？考试的时候你空着能见到下一题吗？做选择题选的是the better one，GMAC从始至终都没说过叫你们选the correct one啊！这题如果你们觉得B不是better one，你们能找到一个比B还好的选项吗？如果找不出来，你们挑B的毛病有意义吗？
让你生孩子，给你1个可能生不出孩子的丑女或者4只猩猩让你选。你难道会选猩猩？即使知道这个女的可能生不出孩子，跟她生出个孩子的概率也比跟猩猩生出孩子的概率大吧？
你们如果能同时找出一个比B好的选项，RON也许还会回答。这么问等于告诉RON你们基本的GMAT做题原则都不懂，他不回答是不想浪费时间。
GMAT考试模拟的是你作为企业领导者做决策的能力，商场上都是非黑即白的“2分”事件吗？给你5个选项，你说我觉得那个都不好，咱们不选了？你无论如何都要选一个的时候，GMAT教给我们：选那个概率大的，即使他不完美。

作者: 疯狂的狐狸 时间: 2016-4-15 21:18

alzn2765 发表于 2016-4-15 17:59
语义：
past few years是什么意思？过去几年。few years的意思是“没几年”，肯定不是“很多年”。
过去20 ...

谢谢大神的分析。我没觉得没答案。我问这个问题是想搞清楚是答案不够完美还是我自己没理解好。
这个mindset也一直是RON强调的，我有get到

如你所说，比较有意义必须few year比few year, 但素这题后面一个eventually的范畴又让我很费解。
嘤嘤嘤。

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-4-15 21:39

疯狂的狐狸发表于 2016-4-15 21:18
谢谢大神的分析。我没觉得没答案。我问这个问题是想搞清楚是答案不够完美还是我自己没理解好。
这个minds ...

我的回复就是你自己的头像，感受一下。。。。

作者: 疯狂的狐狸 时间: 2016-4-15 21:42

alzn2765 发表于 2016-4-15 21:39
我的回复就是你自己的头像，感受一下。。。。

原来你这么萌

作者: 疯狂的狐狸 时间: 2016-4-27 09:04

alzn2765 发表于 2016-4-15 21:39
我的回复就是你自己的头像，感受一下。。。。

http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-405514-1-1.html 第一页倒数第二楼终于找到答案了 gap在enroll

作者: adsdsd 时间: 2016-10-8 02:12
Mark一下！

作者: DanielGi 时间: 2016-11-11 23:23
题干的逻辑：
1. 产生了A结果，原因是有B存在；
2. 因此，采取措施消除了B就能够解除A的效果。

问题在于：采取了措施消除了B是否真的能够达到这样的效果。
由于措施是一种预测，不能确定真伪，因此，结论成立的前提就是“措施能产生效果”
其实该题用措施类的判断方式更好，就是用来判断该措施是有副作用还是有正作用即可。
有正作用，则是加强结论；（注意说正作用有两种方式，1是直接说该方案好，如以前做过；2是间接说方案好，如比其他方案好）
有副作用的就是削弱结论。

其他错项分析：
A． “成本有效”这个概念与题干无关；
B．成功企业用了CTI，不能说明是CTI起的作用；
C．消费者看到广告邮件就删除—说的不是措施的效果；
D．提高广告质量（在CTI的邮件里）能够提高反映效率；
该选项极具迷惑性，因为它貌似提到了CTI的好效果，但是核心词却是“quality”。

作者: 猪小王 时间: 2017-2-18 04:42

alzn2765 发表于 2016-4-15 12:04
你这么想：
如果我要jusify一个方案是effective way to achieve certain goal, 是不是如果我可以证明这个方 ...

谢谢大神，就是这个思路。

这道题里面最后给出recommedation时用了"to improve response rates". 这是这个推理的sufficient condition.

If corporations want to improve response rates, then they need to be more carefully target the individual to whom they mail advertising, thereby cutting down ...

原来的reasoning有个漏洞（也是GMAC考察我们细心和逻辑缜密之处），即很多种forms of advertising都有一定的response rates。If corporations want to improve response rates, then they need to identify which form of advertising they want to use.

E恰恰是填补了这个漏洞。

作者: LcR- 时间: 2018-5-17 23:15
还是有点疑惑，按照og的解释，E题中other form的广告是指untargeted的广告，那就是说题目问怎么证明targeted的广告比untargeted的广告更好，而E给的就是targeted的广告就是比untargeted好，那这不算是circular reasoning了吗？请教大家！

作者: sherryx128 时间: 2020-5-27 22:05
我觉得大家把这道题想复杂了, 我认为OG上的解释是到位的. E选项说的是carefully targeted advertisements by mail的response rates比most other forms of advertising要高, 就是包含了比没有targeted advertisements by mail的高. 也就是原文逻辑链的内容.
B选项错误的原因, 我觉得也不是many corporations和这个corporations的gap, 而是many corporation用了这个方案之后没说有什么结果, 如果B有说response rates提高了, 就是正确的. 可以参考congestion pricing那道题, 正确答案就是in other urban areas.

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