[求助]大全-B-15

魚子醬秋天

        In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.

It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?

I.     Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.

II.    More government workers should be fired.

III.   Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

(A) I only

(B) I and III only

(C) II only

(D) I, II, and III（A）

(E) III only

我的答案是B  思路是

1. Civil Service employees tend to loaf.

2.Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

∴This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.

         

        不知是哪里出了岔子      請給我指正 3Q ^^

mindfree

I think the problem is with the word "most". Most means almost all. Is it required that almost all the government workers are Civil Service employees for the argument to be true? Does 30%, 50% or 65% enough to make it true that the government efficiency suffers because that percentage of workers are loafing? I think so.

If we change III a bit: At least one government worker is Civil Service employee. Then it is right.

When we see words such as most, all, majority, few and other words of magnitude and level, pay attention. Whether it is necessary to use such word?

dashasha

III是不对的。因为从原文推不出来主要是CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE。因为，如果CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE只占少数，但是她们对GOVERMENT的作用确举足轻重的话，一样会严重影响GOVERMENT的工作效率。

魚子醬秋天

thanx for all

一字之差果真影响甚钜 ! 我会在好好琢磨琢磨滴

Pudding

我認真重新思索了"most"的問題, 還是覺得III是可以被inferred的啊....

假如說整個政府的inefficiency是因為少數人造成的, 那麼那些大多數efficient的政府官員們平常都在做什麼? 我也想過, 依照80/20法則, 80%的inefficiency是由20%的loafing employee造成的, 那麼同樣的法則, 為什麼20%的efficient employees不能cover掉80%的inefficiency呢?

而如果真的是由於這些少數人造成整個government inefficiency, 那麼即便這些人再難除掉, 難道政府寧願因為一條手臂中毒而讓整個人都毒發身亡而不肯壯士斷腕嗎? 推出的結論很自然的是因為中毒的部分太多, 所以不敢輕舉妄動啊...

由此, 我覺得II也是對的, 作者認為其實更多的government workers該被fire掉, 只是礙於這種保護制度政府很難動作罷了...

也許我的表達不太清楚, 可是我是透過這樣的思路選了D, 可否請各位牛人指點一二... 感謝!!

Pudding

頂頂...

誰能幫幫我?

心情美丽

哇，楼上的发散思维太厉害了，看来懂得太多也不是好事。就体论题咯

steveyangxt

布丁mm再推一会儿就推出中国车占领日本市场了，美国总统中国人当了。 呵呵 开玩笑。

sesamepaste

我也没想清III不对的原因，选了B，望牛人进一步指点。

Premise:  In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf.

Conclusion: This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.

在Premise中讲的都是Civil Service, 到了Conclusion中话锋一转就给the goverment下结论了. 根据题目要求从“author"的角度看，"author"通过片面的证据下了更大范围的结论，犯了以偏盖全的错误。

题目问的是"author"怎么认为，而"author"认为Civil Service和the goverment是可以等价的。这样按照选项III说法:

III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

该项在"author"眼中是成立的,应不为过。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-19 1:49:30编辑过]

Xunan

up