扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2016-CR-58
To reduce productivity losses from employees calling in sick, Corporation X implemented a new policy requiring employees to come into work unless they were so sick that they had to go to a doctor. But a year after the policy was implemented, a study found that Corporation X's overall productivity losses due to reported employee illnesses had increased.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain why the policy produced the reverse of its intended effect?
After the policy was implemented, employees more frequently went to the doctor when they felt sick.
Before the policy was implemented, employees who were not sick at all often called in sick.
Employees coming into work when sick often infect many of their coworkers.
Unusually few employees became genuinely sick during the year after the policy was implemented.
There are many other factors besides employee illness that can adversely affect productivity.
情景：为了减少因为员工以生病为由的请假而导致的减产，X公司贯彻了一个政策，该政策指出除非员工们严重到必须看医生了，否则必须工作。但是，在这个政策实施一年后，员工以生病为由的请假而导致的减产更多了。
推理：由于本题的问题问了方案，所以是方案推理。
推理结构为：
目标：减少因为员工以生病为由的请假而导致的减产
方案：除非员工们严重到必须看医生了，否则必须工作
选题方式：方案推理有三个评估方向，简而言之，即，答案选项一定和方案的内容相关。
选项分析：
A选项：在这个政策实施后，在他们感到不舒服后，他们更加频繁的去看医生了。员工们更加频繁的去看医生可以在一定程度上增加减产的可能性，可以暂时保留。属于CQ1：方案的可行性问题
B选项： 在这个政策实施以前，没得病的人经常会说自己得病了。本选项正好会让方案达成目的，可以加强原文。属于CQ1：方案的可行性问题。
C选项：Correct. 带病坚持工作的人可能会影响很多他们的同事。若本选项成立，则会让更多的员工患病，从而可能反而减少了产量。属于CQ3：方案的否定性副作用。
D选项：在这个政策实施后，极少的员工真正的得病。本选项不符合方案的三个评估方向，其属于和方案巧合的一个背景信息。
E选项：还有很多除了员工的疾病外的影响产量的因素。本选项和方案无关。
A错误的原因：因为要求的必须they were so sick that they had to go to a doctor才能请假，限制员工看医生的前提为：“患有不得不看医生的重病”，单纯增加A重的条件，员工生重病的概率依旧和执行新方案前一致，即不会有更多的人生重病，因而就算因一般性疾病去看医生，也不符合请假条件，故而不会增加缺勤率
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论