What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
各位老大, 这话咋翻译呀,晕
字面上：那么如果在每个邮递员投递更多的信的同时，有更多的信遗失或延误，怎么办？
可理解为：错误率 = lost+delayed / delivered，分子分母同时增加，即错误率不变。意即不应该根据delivered的数量来判断效率，而应该考虑错误率的大小。
接着请教：
What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
上句中 that more are delivered是同位语从句？还是？
我觉得像定语从句的感觉啊。同位语从句。。。。。。，不知道了。有点昏。
我觉得是定语从句，that后面的从句修饰the same time，more后面省略了letters，补全后就是
What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more (letters) are delivered?
即：在大量的信被递送的同时有大量的信丢失了或延迟了又怎么样呢？
接着请教：
What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
上句中 that more are delivered是同位语从句？还是？
这个合起来理解比较容易， 是个时间终于从句＝when more are delivered
65.
Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? what if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
65.
The critique of the proposed purely quantitative measure of productivity raises the issue of quality of service, which implies that quality of service is a potentially relevant consideration. Thus, choice D is the best answer.
The objection assumes that postal workers are a suitable illustrative example of service workers in general; thus, choice A is inappropriate. By delivery of letters, the argument treats letter delivery as the primary activity of postal workers; thus, choice B is inappropriate. Because the passage explicitly ascribes productivity to entire categories of workers, choice C is inappropriate. Choice E is inappropriate, since the objector does not question the relevance of the number of letters delivered but implies that something else might also be relevant.
对C的意思不太明确
请问，（c ）是说“效率应该被描述成对于不同种类的工人，而不是某个工人个体”吗？og解释“因为文章描述的效率很明确的是对于整个类别的工人，所以c 错”，不知道我理解的对不对，请大家指正！多谢！！
楼上理解的对吗？
文章说的是per worker
是对工种说的，并非某一个具体的个体
OG的解释是，C本来就是文章承认的，question的并非这个问题。
接着请教：
What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
上句中 that more are delivered是同位语从句？还是？
从句子结构的角度来看，那不应该是that而应该是than吧~~~~~~
前面有more letters后面当然要有than结构才完整吧。
而且是than 的话也好理解多了~~~
从句子结构的角度来看，那不应该是that而应该是than吧~~~~~~
前面有more letters后面当然要有than结构才完整吧。
而且是than 的话也好理解多了~~~
应该是同位语吧。省略了than before。
What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker (than before) at the same time that more are delivered (than before)?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |