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?
(p69-17). 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. 这道逻辑题中的问题究竟是什么意思呢?该怎样来分析这道题?谢谢!!
哦,呵呵,偶的水平还真是不行啊,没把问题看清楚 漏了看原文还有一句they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker 所以反对者当然是要针对质量这个问题提出置疑了,这也就是d说的 a是对原文第一句的一个大前提,但不适应于The objection implied above to the productivity measure 呵呵,不好意思咯