天山3—Q16

susander

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the division’s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer’s program has not met its goal are false.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.

C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.

D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year

答案E为什么错呢？想不通。

谢谢了！

initusur

我也看了很久才转不过弯来

题目问的是基于以下的assumption，total yearly amount of hazardous waste 达到减少至一半的目标是成立的。

B说去年生产总量和94年至少是一样多的。楼上说的有道理，B说的生产总量是能直接影响total waste，但是既然B项说了至少是一样多，那就等于没有达到减少一半的目标啊。

E项：生产总量=每工人排放率×工人数，如果在排放率变小的情况下，去年的工人人数也没有比94年增加很多，这样生产总量肯定是减少的呀，这样才是题目成立的assumption。所以我认为还是E项正确。

请大家继续探讨，谢谢！

besttys

Although E seems like an obvious answer from equation---Total waste = (waste /

employee ) * employees --- the whole point of the argument, analyzing of waste per

employee, is in order to compare the total waste. Production output lays at the

foundation of such analysis, and it directly affects the total waste. If the

production output has changed, there would be no point to further disentangle the

total waste into waste per employee and number of employees.

In addition, E lays within the context of the argument --- the triangular

relationship among total waste, number of employee, and waste per employee. E is

not something out side of the context of argument and something taken for granted.

E is the premises of the argument, as Webster defined, premises is a proposition

forming the basis for the argument.

Further, jump out from the box of “Total waste = (waste / employee) * employees”,

decrease production also decrease waste employee without job cutting, not

necessary number of employee affect the total output.

B direct influence the total waste, increase and decrease of the production level

will have immediate impact on the total waste. B rules out an alternative

situation that direct affects the amount of total waste, and it needs to be clear

out before any further analysis and draw the inference of total waste from the

perspective of waste per employee.

E is directly link to the argument; while B directly affect the preexisting

condition of the argument. B is more antecedent to the argument E, and it is more

directly link to the total waste.