feifei-107 请教

107. Because of the recent transformation of the market, Quore, Inc., must increase the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore’s production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also be true?

A.        It is only Quore’s production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market.

B.        Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.

C.        If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.

D.       Because of the transformation of the market, Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.

E.        If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.

【正确答案】E

【解题思路】

本题的类型是归纳类，即如果原文正确，可以得出什么结论或推出什么。

可简化题干的表述为：

transformation of the market（A）→Q increase its production（B）

Q not increase its production（非B）→Q will go bankrupt（C）

选项A的表述为：Q’s production structure→Q will not go bankrupt（非C），无法从题干中推出。

选项B的表述为：Q increase production（B）→Q will not go bankrupt（非C），为的逆命题，
   不成立（原命题与其逆否命题等价）。

选项C的表述为：market had not been transformed（非A）→Q will not need to increase its production（非B），为的逆命题，
   不成立（原命题与其逆否命题等价）。

选项D的表述为：transformation of the market（A）→Q will achieve a productivity increase，无法从题干中推出。

选项E的表述为：Q not increase production（非B）→Q will go bankrupt（C），与一致。

但是我觉得E也不对，因为就算没有提升20%，提升了5%也可能就可以不破产，因为原文第一句是说如果不提升就会破产，但是没有说明提升的幅度啊

大家怎么看呢？ 谢谢！

这道我也迷惑了好久,总觉得题目少了条件,望NN解释

this is a question of infer principle.

In GMAT we have to adapt to it.

In the argument:

1.transformation of market-->company increase

2.no increse--->bankrupt

3.10% prodctivity ---->20% increase

A: prodcutvity structure is not invloved in the infer

B:company increase--->no bankrupt(it is not sufficient sice company increase is not only one required condition of the survive of company however,if we even haven't increase, bankrupt is doomed)

C:No market change--->unnecessary company increase.(We don't know the situation happened beyond the argument in which is only focus on the condition of marketing enviroment has changed.)

D: market change---> company will survive(not yet, it hasn't been decided)

E:no increase --->bankrupt(yes ,that is what is discussed in the argument.)

Pay attention: company increase is a is not only one required condition of the survive of company.But if there is no increase, company must bankrupt and at that time it becomes an one and only one required condition needed for the bankrupt of company)