|
65. 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.
65. The critique of the proposed purely quantitative measure of productivity raises the issue of quality of service, which implies that quality of service is a potentially relevant consideration. Thus, choice D is the best answer.
The objection assumes that postal workers are a suitable illustrative example of service workers in general; thus, choice A is inappropriate. By delivery of letters, the argument treats letter delivery as the primary activity of postal workers; thus, choice B is inappropriate. Because the passage explicitly ascribes productivity to entire categories of workers, choice C is inappropriate. Choice E is inappropriate, since the objector does not question the relevance of the number of letters delivered but implies that something else might also be relevant. 对C的意思不太明确 请问，（c ）是说“效率应该被描述成对于不同种类的工人，而不是某个工人个体”吗？og解释“因为文章描述的效率很明确的是对于整个类别的工人，所以c 错”，不知道我理解的对不对，请大家指正！多谢！！
 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-3-12 07:28:00
