OG CR 110帮忙解释一下。

nickmartin

110. 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.

Argument Evaluation

Situation     In considering how best to measure productivity, the assumption is madethat the more
letters postal workers deliver, the more productive they are. Thisassumption is then
challenged: What if the number of delayed and lost letters increasesproportionately with
the number of letters delivered?
Reasoning    Which statement would NOT be accepted by those objecting to themeasure? The point of the
objection is that the number of letters delivered is, by itself, aninadequate measure of
postal workers' productivity. The challenge introduces theissue of the quality of the work
being performed by suggesting that the number of misdirected lettersshould also be
taken into account. The challenge is based on rejecting the idea thatquality can be
ignored when measuring productivity.
A    The argument uses postalworkers as an example; the challenge does not question the fairness of
the example.
B     Letter delivery is assumedto be the primary activity of postal workers because their productivity
is measured on that basis; the challenge does notreject this point.
C    The argument does discuss acategory of workers, postal workers, rather than individuals; the
challenge does not reject this point.
D    Correct. This statementproperly identifies the point that is the basis of the challenge to the
measure; the objection does NOT accept the position that quality can beignored in evaluating
productivity.
E    There is no doubt thatcounting letters delivered is part of measuring productivity; the challenge
is to its being the only measure.
The correct answer is D.


这个题目是问flaw吗？

JohnY6

【非大牛，供后来人参考】
我觉得我应该是明白了，题目想问的是， 上述论述质疑的是哪一个truth，就是 以往是按照送信数量来评价productivity， 这样的方式内含的假设是什么

所以不是问的本身论述有什么问题，而是以往的评价方式有什么问题

以前只按照数量来评价，忽视了服务中的质量，也就是按时送达，不遗漏这样的指标

论述通过质疑这个点来批判以前对productivity的评价方式

rogerliu111

看了别的帖子茅塞顿开 这道题的d选项 我们大概能读懂意思因为quality ignored 就是说忽略了服务的质量 题目中说送信的例子就是说送得多丢的也多不代表服务质量高 所以选d可以是题干中说法的支持选项

nesstang

请问下D选项应该怎么翻译呢，尤其是rendered。而且很不明白，为什么说这是appropriately be  ignored。既然都是可以正确地忽视就不算是个flaw啊。。

nickmartin

thank you!

clumsy123

我觉得就是指出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. 这段话的flaw吧~

But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?这两句话质疑的就是送信的质量问题，那么原来的论点就有个潜在假设就是The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.那2个问句质疑的就是这一点。