A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.
There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.
Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.
Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.
There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.
mark原文的大致意思是:AR公司有大量复杂的修理要求返工。返工的工作总是让人满意的。因此,当第一遍没完全修好时,不是因为维修人员能力不行而是因为有一个a level of focused concentration使得返工比第一遍修理更加可靠(也就是这个返工要求比第一次更加认真专心)。
那就是说,因为这个公司的repair work侧重于在返修时更认真,那么有了返修这个保障,第一次可能就没这么认真了
这里,reasoning line: rework总是让人满意--->gap---> initial work不好不是因为能力不行,原因是返工要求比第一次更加认真专注
这里的gap是什么呢?假如intial work是学徒或者新手,而返修的是熟练工,那么initial work也会做得不好,返修后也会让人满意,那就不是专不专心的问题了。
强调的rework job和first-time job的区别在于concentration level的不同
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论