十月杀鸡交流站～大家多捧场

liu977

帮忙贴一贴小广告

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=34&replyid=134022&id=134022&page=1&skin=0&Star=1

liu977

继续，再一题

GWD-7-Q27:

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?

1. 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.


2. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.


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


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


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

这题看了前人的讨论，又反复读了N遍仍然百思不得其解，主要问题有2：

1.E选项怎么翻译？

2.如果将A选项取非，并不能直接使原结论不成立，因为虽然A说两个系统工人不同，但是没有说清是什么不同，即使默认为是技术能力不同，那也没说谁高谁低呀。。。如果first-time job的工人能力高，那不是加强了结论吗？

迷惑～～求解！

枫林

以下是引用liu977在2005-9-25 20:43:00的发言：

GWD-7-Q27:

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?

1. 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.


2. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.


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


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


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

这题看了前人的讨论，又反复读了N遍仍然百思不得其解，主要问题有2：

1.E选项怎么翻译？

2.如果将A选项取非，并不能直接使原结论不成立，因为虽然A说两个系统工人不同，但是没有说清是什么不同，即使默认为是技术能力不同，那也没说谁高谁低呀。。。如果first-time job的工人能力高，那不是加强了结论吗？

迷惑～～求解！

说实在话，这题偶也不是很明白，刚刚又去搜了前人的帖子，大致说下下偶的理解，有不清楚的地方，还请liuMM及众位高手表笑话偶．

题目大致理解：由Ａ．Ｐ．负责的大部分繁杂的修理活必须翻工．翻工后的活总是相当不错．因此，当首次修理不完善并不是因为机械师们能力的问题；相反，很明显是由于繁杂的修理所要求关注的重心标准对翻工的活建立在首次的活的基础上更加完善．

题目的结论是说前后两次的工作所要求的重心不同，并不是修理人员的能力所导致的翻修．需要架桥说明为什么不是修理人员的能力所导致的呢？

1. 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.首次修理和翻工的两波机械师都具有相同的系统成员资格，其实也就是说他们就是一个锅里吃饭的，在能力上没有区别．


2. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.干吗要与别的公司竞争呢？文中并无提及．


3. Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.　Ａ．Ｐ．的保证对首次修理活有用但不含盖二次修理，太牵强了吧，因为没了保证人家就说好啊？谁跟谁，显然不对．


4. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.　Ａ．Ｐ并没有以任何方式处罚那些对干了繁杂的修理活后必须要重新翻工的机械师．这么说第一次没干好不处罚第二次没干好要处罚，什么理？不对．与结论无关


5. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.修理工作没有满意的范畴对于Ａ．Ｐ总是执行地首次修理，也就是没有一个好的标准放在那里做量化．

所以Ａ选项就很好地架了桥来说明重新修理并不是机械师的能力所导致的，因为他们本来就是一个锅里吃饭的旗鼓相当的伙计．

liu977

以下是引用枫林在2005-9-25 23:24:00的发言：

说实在话，这题偶也不是很明白，刚刚又去搜了前人的帖子，大致说下下偶的理解，有不清楚的地方，还请liuMM及众位高手表笑话偶．

题目大致理解：由Ａ．Ｐ．负责的大部分繁杂的修理活必须翻工．翻工后的活总是相当不错．因此，当首次修理不完善并不是因为机械师们能力的问题；相反，很明显是由于繁杂的修理所要求关注的重心标准对翻工的活建立在首次的活的基础上更加完善．

题目的结论是说前后两次的工作所要求的重心不同，并不是修理人员的能力所导致的翻修．需要架桥说明为什么不是修理人员的能力所导致的呢？

1. 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.首次修理和翻工的两波机械师都具有相同的系统成员资格，其实也就是说他们就是一个锅里吃饭的，在能力上没有区别．


2. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.干吗要与别的公司竞争呢？文中并无提及．


3. Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.　Ａ．Ｐ．的保证对首次修理活有用但不含盖二次修理，太牵强了吧，因为没了保证人家就说好啊？谁跟谁，显然不对．


4. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.　Ａ．Ｐ并没有以任何方式处罚那些对干了繁杂的修理活后必须要重新翻工的机械师．这么说第一次没干好不处罚第二次没干好要处罚，什么理？不对．与结论无关


5. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.修理工作没有满意的范畴对于Ａ．Ｐ总是执行地首次修理，也就是没有一个好的标准放在那里做量化．

所以Ａ选项就很好地架了桥来说明重新修理并不是机械师的能力所导致的，因为他们本来就是一个锅里吃饭的旗鼓相当的伙计．

容我消化一下

nyc_cfa

我也报名,打算16号考,是个星期天,让考吧? 有在纽约的没有,一起去.

nyc_cfa

对了,10月16号左右考的话应该看9月和10月的机井吗?

vler

俺18号考啊，加油加油

lovelykaokao

在问一下10.10考应该看9月的和去年10月的机井是么？：）

哪位mm或gg帮我解答一下3ks~~

番茄笑了

路过支持一下~~10月的队友们加油阿！！！

nyc_cfa

刚报了名,10月19号,下午6点才开始.250刀,抢钱呢.