[問題]大全TEST B ,15

[shena]

15. 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
(E) III only

Ans:(A)
請問II的錯誤在哪?

[訪客]

That's assumpton type question.

Thus, if more government workers should not be fired, it still reach the conclusion that the government is so inefficient.
So Choice II is wrong.

But I have a question about option III.
Someone can explain for us???

[lightblue]

我認為 這題沒有提出 goverment employee中有多少civil service mployee 有可能只占小部分

而II 文章只有說 因為hard to fire ~ tend to loaf
我想這暗示 如果 easy to fire ~ don't tend to loaf
並沒有說 fire more workers

小小意見 請指教

[Pudding]

這題我印象蠻深, 記得那時我是選了D而且搬出一堆歪理來幫自己佐證, 連80 / 20法則都用上了...

基本上現在我同意CD上mindfree的解說, 去找了來供各位參考, 也請大家繼續討論...

(以下摘自www.chasedream.com論壇, 發帖人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?

[leoitc]

key word is "most"
相反的,我認為應該改為all, 否則部份goverment official 不是 civil service employees->他們不會很難被開除

[benetracy]

(以下摘自www.chasedream.com論壇, 發帖人mindfree)
"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?"

這句話說的真好
另可參照大全的B2及yuying所提到的OG195
個人小小心得:
當是考assumption時,有only, almost entirely , most等較武斷的字眼的選項少選為妙,若是at least 就無妨了

[haijung]

想請教一下，為什麼I會對呢? 這題題目我看了很多遍總覺得和job security一點關係都沒有阿，那為什麼I是對的呢? 煩請指點~~謝謝!

[dibert8]

job security:工作保障.題目說要開除一個員工,經理人會被課高額的稅,開除員工的高門檻使得員工有侍無恐的怠工.這就是 I.
II 意思開除得不夠多,還要開除更多? 題目沒有說已開除任何員工.
III 似乎有些模糊,題目說 "This explains in large part ...", in large part 是不是等同於 most 呢? 題目只說開除 Civil Service employee 難度高大多可解釋政府無效率,這不是說大部份政府員工都是 Civil Service employee (所以政府有大部份效率不彰)?

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

不懂 III不對

我認為 若沒III,整個題目就會顯得武斷
題目: 前面談Civil Service employee......後面總結 政府沒效率,由此可知政府是由Civil Service employee代表(至少過半數)才有說服力
若Civil Service employee只佔20%,而產生這個結論,那不是很以偏概全嗎?