Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
In a typical year, Innovair's airplanes are involved in 35 collisions while parked or being towed in airports, with a resulting yearly cost of $1,000,000 for repairs.
To reduce the frequency of ground collisions, Innovair will begin giving its ground crews additional training, at an annual cost of $500,000. Although this will cut the number of ground collisions by about half at best, the drop in repair costs can be expected to be much greater, since _________.
most ground collisions happen when ground crews are rushing to minimize the time a delayed airplane spends on the ground
a ground collision typically occurs when there are no passengers on the airplane
the additional training will focus on helping ground crews avoid those kinds of ground collisions that cause the most costly damage
the $500,000 cost figure for the additional training of ground crews includes the wages that those crews will earn during the time spent in actual training
most ground collisions have been caused by the least experienced ground-crew members
情景:Innovair的飞机经常在停着的时候被撞。为了减少这种地面被撞的几率,Innovair准备培训员工。虽然最多只能减少一半的撞击概率,但是维修费可以被剩下更多。
推理:因为本题足够简单直观,所以我觉得其实也无需判断推理方式(如果判断,肯定是方案推理)。直接找哪个选项能解释维修费为什么能下降很多即可。
选题方式:略
选项分析:
A选项:大部分的地面撞击发生在地勤人员着急去减少一个已经晚点的飞机在地面上消耗的时间。本选项讲的是撞击发生的时间,和减少维修成本没有任何关系。
B选项:地面撞击经常发生在飞机上没有乘客的时候。本选项讨论的是发生撞击时飞机内部的情况,和减少维修成本没有任何关系。
C选项:Correct. 这个额外的训练课的目标是帮助地勤人员避免那些会造成最大维修成本的伤害的撞击。显然地,虽然减少的撞击次数可能不多,但如果减少的都是严重的撞击,自然也可以在很大程度上减少维修成本。
D选项:这个$500,000的成本数字包括了员工在训练时的工资。本选项和维修成本减少无关,讲的是成本都包括了什么内容。
E选项: 大部分的撞击是被最没有经验的地勤人员引起的。本选项讨论的是引起撞击的人。用了额外训练的人,也不见得就会更有经验(那个额外训练和经验多少没有关系)。因此,本选项和维修成本减少没有关系。
其实这道题因果推理更合适些我觉得,重点已经不是评估这个方案可不可以做,而是执行培训后更省钱,问其因果
我也觉得,不过太直观了,直接就能做,不用纠结这些
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论