标题: 【求助】BOLDFACE题 我查了其他的，似乎都没有对这个版本的解释 [打印本页] 作者: Jae230 时间: 2011-12-14 11:48 标题: 【求助】BOLDFACE题 我查了其他的，似乎都没有对这个版本的解释 。作者: Jae230 时间: 2011-12-14 11:50
Q15: Business Consultant:Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear thatthe use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy.Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses.Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.
In the consultant’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.
The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal.
The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.
The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.
The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that justification.
Answer: A 答案是A，但是我觉得B更好啊。第二个粗体并没有说是第一个strategy的缺点啊作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-12-14 11:59
Notice the word "however"? That indicates the introduction of a DIFFERENT opinion/argument. The second BF lists an ADVANTAGE of using a title while the first BF wants to "shun" or not use the title.作者: Jae230 时间: 2011-12-14 12:16
Notice the word "however"? That indicates the introduction of a DIFFERENT opinion/argument. The second BF lists an ADVANTAGE of using a title while the first BF wants to "shun" or not use the title.
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/12/14 11:59:14)
嗯，我突然发现了B选项中有一句as a means of achieving that goal，但是use a title 不是achieving that goal作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-12-14 12:21
Found from the internet:
First bold: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles
This is something the consultant accepts as established fact. We don't yet know whether he agrees or disagrees with the approach.
next we have: because they fear that <titles inhibit communication in the company>.
So that's why some corporations don't use titles. Still don't know author's opinion about this.
then: Since <blah blah blah>, however
Bingo. Author doesn't agree.
2nd bold: use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses.
How does this relate to the opening stuff? We had: 1) don't use titles 2) because there's a drawback to using titles
But now the author is saying 3) there's also a benefit to using titles 4) but that benefit has nothing to do with the drawback described above (the drawback is about internal usage of titles; the benefit is about external usage)
Answers.
A) The first is a strategy (don't use titles) used to avoid a particular problem (inhibiting internal communication. Yep - good so far. The second presents a drawback (titles good for external stuff) to THAT strategy <already mentioned earlier: don't use titles>. Again, good so far. Keep this one in.
B) The first is a strategy (don't use titles) used to avoid a particular problem (inhibiting internal communication. Yep - good so far. The second is a consideration (titles good for external stuff) that calls into question how well the strategy (don't use titles) achieves the desired goal (don't inhibit internal communication).
No. The 2nd statement doesn't address how well or poorly the strategy (don't use titles) achieves the stated goal (don't inhibit internal communication. Eliminate.
C) The first is a strategy (don't use titles) used to avoid a particular problem (inhibiting internal communication. Yep - good so far. The second is a consideration (titles good for external stuff) raised in questioing the significance of the problem (inhibit internal communication).
No again. The 2nd bold does not address the internal communication problem. Eliminate.
D) The first is part of an explanation (don't use titles - is that an explanation?) for a phenomenon (? what's the phenomenon?). No.
E) The first descirbes a policy (don't use titles) that the author wants to justify. No. The author doesn't agree with this policy.
_________________ Stacey Koprince GMAT Instructor Director of Online Community Manhattan GMAT