[求助]天山4-15没讨论过的，请教各位

Drakedragon

TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide.  The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping.  The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.

Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?

A Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
B Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most other products shipped by mail-order companies
C Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping
D Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later
E Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping companies it uses to ship products to its customers
   Answer: C

选对了，回头细想觉得像蒙的，当时做时就想如果对C回答YES，那么结论新包装的cost能被replacing的cost拉平就会 被weaken，因为这些damage是没包装前就有的，也就不会对costsaving起作用，请各位指教

Drakedragon

顶一下

chenae8151

如果是包装前就有的，那么换不换包装没关系；如果是包装后有的，证明是包装的问题，就可以换包装了。

Lily0515

说说我的想法

这shipping company’s manager提议使用减少损害的materials, 这manager认为公司的总成本不会受影响, 因为使用 new materials的成本与顾客要求替换成本相同

找评估???

Ans:C是否回来的产品有相当多部份是由于damage 己发生

是->这项提议可行

否->表示可能回来的项目非damage而是“它因造成”, 若如此使用new material未必使公司总成本未受影响, 这项提议不可行

请指教

 

Drakedragon

我同意3楼的看法，如果包装前就有，那么换包装不能解决问题；如果不是，换包装就有道理