OG 12--9 好像从来没有人问过这道题噢~~~~~~~~~~~~

双色鹿

In order to reduce the number of items damaged while in transit to customers, packaging consultants recommended that the TrueSave mail-order company increase the amount of packing material so as to fill any empty spaces in its cartons. Accordingly, TrueSave officials instructed the company's packers to use more packing material than before, and the packers zealously acted on these instructions and used as much as they could. Nevertheless, customer reports of damaged items rose somewhat.

Which of the following, if true, most heops to explain why acting on the consultants' recommendation failed to achieve its goal?

B. When packing material is compressed too densely, it loses some of its capacity to absorb shock.
C. The amount of packing material used in a carton does not significantly influence the ease with which a customer can unpack the package.

这道题很明显选B哈，所以我搜索论坛的帖子从来没有人问过这道题
我的疑惑是OG关于C的解释：
If customers were able to remove their items just as easily from boxes filled with more packing material as from boxes using less packing material, the items would be unaffected by an increase in the amount of packing material used.
这个解释是说，如果顾客从包裹材料很多的包裹里面取东西，和从包裹材料较少的包裹里取东西同样容易的话，那么被包裹的东西将不会受到包装材料的影响。
首先：小鹿觉得C压根是一个无关选项，从包裹里取东西的难易程度与东西的损坏完全没有关系——但是OG却能从取东西的难易程度看出包裹的东西是否会受到包装材料的影响，这条逻辑链小鹿觉得是搭建不起来的；
其次：假如OG的这条逻辑链搭建起来了，那么这个结论：被包裹的东西将不会受到包装材料的影响不是刚好也导致了计划的失败么，虽然不像B能那么直接的导致计划失败，但C确实也导致了计划的失败呀！
恳请各位兄弟姐妹解答~谢谢~

teddybearj4

顶一下小鹿！
其实不是太明白小鹿的问题，我就分析一下我自己的思路吧~

首先看问题这是一道paradox的问题，
1、TrueSave officials instructed the company's packers to use more packing material than before
2、customer reports of damaged items rose (conclusion)
1和2paradox。选项必须是要直接导致2的发生，兼容1，或者同时导致1。

B 选项吸收震动的冲击变小了，导致跟容易损坏。(导致2，兼容1)
C选项很多层包装纸影响了顾客打开快递。(无关，不能导致2)

不知道我讲清楚了没有哇？

双色鹿

哇还是teddy好，终于有人回我了~
我的想法和你一样，我也觉得C是个无关选项，但是我最近在分析OG的思路，想看看OG对每个错误选项是怎么分析的
但是从OG对C的解释来看，OG的逻辑是：如果人们从材料多的包裹里拿东西和从材料少得包裹里拿东西一样容易的话，那么被包裹的东西将不会受到材料多少的影响
给你画个图，OG的逻辑是，有这样一条逻辑链：
从包裹里取东西难易程度——>被包裹的东西被摔坏的几率
所以
材料多少对取东西难易程度没影响——>材料多少对被包裹的东西被摔坏的几率没影响
我不理解OG的这条逻辑链是怎么搭建出来的，明明是一个无关选项，他怎么分析出来这么个逻辑链
这样的话我的意思你明白了没？

babybearmm

You can understand this problem by applying your knowledge and intuition of physics.

too much spare space ~ high moving distance (inside the package) for packed items ~ high momentum （动量） at collision ~ high collision damage

Therefore, consultants recommended that workers leave little spare space in order to decrease the COLLISION DAMAGE.

However, a problem of COMPRESSION DAMAGE - a different form of damage - arises. This is why choice B is the correct answer.  

Regarding your inquiry about Choice C, we have a positive correlation between "the amount of spare space" and "the easiness of unpacking".

much spare space ~ easy to unpack

Choice C is saying that "The amount of packing material ... does not significantly influence (easiness of unpacking)"
See? "not significant"
That means the actual spare space is not significantly changed. Hence the level of damage would NOT be significantly affected.
Therefore, OG says:
"If customers were able to remove their items just as easily from boxes filled with more packing material as from boxes using less packing material, the items would be unaffected by an increase in the amount of packing material used."

双色鹿

Marvelous！baby姐姐！！~~
姐姐的“That means the actual spare space is not significantly changed. ”让我突然意识到什么，果然查看原题，我没有注意这个重要的细节：“packaging consultants recommended that the TrueSave mail-order company increase the amount of packing material so as to fill any empty spaces in its cartons”
我把OG想要增加材料的目的仅仅理解为减少damage，但是为什么增加材料能减少damage完全是我自己的空想，我没有注意到OG早已给出了原因，就是fill any“empty spaces”
这也就直接导致为什么我没有理解“much spare space ~ easy to unpack”这条逻辑链，所以才产生了这个问题，实际上是犯了一个做逻辑题的时候很低级却影响很大的错误呀！
但是从Baby姐姐的分析：“too much spare space ~ high moving distance (inside the package) for packed items ~ high momentum （动量） at collision ~ high collision damage”我才发觉自己做逻辑题的思路很狭隘，仅局限于题目表面，根本没有其他的思考。
太谢谢baby姐姐了，姐姐不光帮小鹿解决了一个问题，还教会小鹿一个思路~

babybearmm

哇，小鹿你想的真深入！赞啊~

teddybearj4

baby姐的回答好赞哇~

双色鹿

一人送你们一枝哈~

CCcarol

我要Mark一下明天看,今天太困了~

双色鹿

好哇~欢迎CCcarol一起讨论~越来越觉得GMAT逻辑题有意思了，没一个小细节都可以有无限的逻辑延伸~~