ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1398|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

真的没想明白 GWD CR请教

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2019-3-18 03:24:44 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.

(B) There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.

(C) Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.

(D) Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.

(E) There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.

这是一道GWD逻辑题,正确答案是A,但是对于D选项很疑惑
如果把D取非就是 “对于那些第一次工作被要求返工的人,会有惩罚”
这恰好削弱了结论,因为  如果被返工会有惩罚——所以工人不会懈怠——所以不合格的原因是他们能力不够,而非不够专注
那么为什么D答案是错误的呢

收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2019-3-18 22:20:51 | 只看该作者
UP一下
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2019-3-20 01:20:48 | 只看该作者
有牛牛解答一下吗
地板
发表于 2019-4-3 00:51:22 来自手机 | 只看该作者
当有惩罚的时候
第一次修理可以很专注
但是 第二次修理也可以比第一次更专注 因为如果第二次没修好 第三次还是会被罚


选项a 如果他们有systematic difference 那么可能就不是concentration导致第一次和第二次修理效果差异 可能是其他原因 所以结论不一定成立
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-28 23:47
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部