求助。快来看看吧

Spencer125

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.

答案是D。为何不是E。我们说反对者观点建立在怀疑E，即怀疑投递个数与考核邮递员效率是相关的 这个假设。  这么理解错哪了？？？

Spencer125

helppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

Spencer125

upppppppppppppppppppppp

Spencer125

upupppppppppppppppppp

拧发条喵

题目的意思是：A认为，投递员投递的信越多说明能力越强。但这是错误的，因为衡量一个邮递员的工作质量是复杂的。因为万一信件丢了呢blahblah
D. The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
只重视数量不重视质量
E. The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
能力与投递数量相关

注意题干不是在否定“即怀疑投递个数与考核邮递员效率是相关的 这个假设”啊，它是在否定只考虑数量不考虑质量的单一标准，它是在承认与数量相关的基础上加入质量的考虑。

Spencer125

拧发条喵 发表于 2013-8-15 22:37
题目的意思是：A认为，投递员投递的信越多说明能力越强。但这是错误的，因为衡量一个邮递员的工作质量是复 ...

谢谢，美女~~~讲的很清楚~~~~