天山-3-16

mars_cheung

肯定 E 是对的。

注意题干里面用作比较的是“每生产工人”的废物产出值。要是没有94年人数不比后来（去年）人数少这个假设，那所有目标都好容易实现了。地球人都知道，只要把后来生产工人的数字提高到94年的2倍甚至以上，就算废弃物的总量不变（项目失败），这个所谓“人均”数字还是会下降到94年数字的一半以下。这样的话实现目标不要太容易了？

至于 B 项，产量的问题，我觉得也是实现目标的方法之一——项目的目标是废弃物总量减半，通过产量减半来实现这一目标，从结果出发也不可以说项目失败的。

FFcapm

i agree with this...

lzj1209

E的拥护者：
The number of production workersassigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.（原文的goal是要减少总量totalamount，而给出的evidence是单位数量perproduction worker，所以要使总量减少，而单位数量能说明问题的情况下，数量要保持不变）

双鱼游

一页一页翻都没看到lawyer贴个beatthegmat论坛ron的回复帖子吧
your reasoning would only work if there were some sort of average given PER JET.
no such average is given, so this is wrong.

the figures are given in TOTAL POUNDS PER PRODUCTION WORKER.
that's it.
they are NOT given in total pounds/jet, or in total pounds per production worker per jet.

therefore, the ONLY units that are relevant are the units that are USED in this statistic: POUNDS and # PRODUCTION WORKERS.
any other figures, such as the number of jets, are irrelevant.
the number of jets is no more relevant than the number of times that the workers go to the bathroom.

--

in general, when you have a CR problem that references actual statistics with units, like this, one, you can just look and see what units are present in the discussion.

really, it's that simple. (note that i didn't say "easy"; i said "simple".)
you cannot introduce the number of jets as a confounding factor, because the number of jets has absolutely nothing to do with ANYTHING in the problem statement.
nothing.