TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide. The company's shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping. The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.
Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager's proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?
Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most other products shipped by mail-order companies
Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping
Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later
Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping companies it uses to ship products to its customers
情景:TrueSave公司打算给邮件包上一个更贵的新包装。公司的经理认为总体成本并不会改变,因为新包装所增加的成本和原包装导致损坏而带来的赔偿成本相同。
推理:
前提:新包装所增加的成本和原包装导致损坏而带来的赔偿成本相同
结论:总体成本并不会改变
答案预估:
那些“总体成本并不会改变”的其它必要条件(常理上能保真推理出的一切结果)是否存在。
选项分析:
A选项:相较于其他比较典型的电子器件,TrueSave配送的电子器件是不是比较容易损坏?本选项和总成本无关。
B选项:相较于大部分其他产品,电子器件是不是配送公司比较容易在配送过程中损坏的一种?本选项和总成本无关。
C选项:Correct. 是不是有很大一部分数量的被退货的商品是在打包的时候被损坏的?如果确有很大一部分这样的货品,则在包装改进之后,仍旧需要赔偿换新包装以前那么多钱,自然就会改变总成本。
这道题我认为老师翻译错了C选项,正确的翻译是应该是:是否很大一部分被退货的货品是因为它们在包装的时候,就已经坏了。
也就是说,即使增大了包装的费用,但是商品都是已经损坏了的,用了贵材料也没用,反正都是坏的,还是要赔钱。
这就反对了他的方案。
求指导~谢谢~
感觉你和老师的解释没差啊~
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论