Trancorp currently transports all its goods to Burland Island by truck. The only bridge over the channel separating Burland from the mainland is congested, and trucks typically spend hours in traffic. Trains can reach the channel more quickly than trucks, and freight cars can be transported to Burland by barges that typically cross the channel in an hour. Therefore, to reduce shipping time, Trancorp plans to switch to trains and barges to transport goods to Burland.
Which of the following would be most important to know in determining whether Trancorp's plan, if implemented, is likely to achieve its goal?
Whether transportation by train and barge would be substantially less expensive than transportation by truck
Whether there are boats that can make the trip between the mainland and Burland faster than barges can
Whether loading the freight cars onto barges is very time consuming
Whether the average number of vehicles traveling over the bridge into Burland has been relatively constant in recent years
Whether most trucks transporting goods into Burland return to the mainland empty
情景:Trancorp现在通过货车把货物运往Burland岛。Burland岛与大陆之间的仅有的一座桥很是拥挤,货车运输要花几个小时。火车到达海边比货车快,货物可通过驳船运往Burland岛,而且只花1个小时。为了减少运输时间,Trancorp决定用火车和驳船运输。
推理:由于本题的问题问的是方案,所以为方案推理。
推理结构为:
目标:减少运输时间
方案:用火车和驳船运输
选题方式:由于问题是让我们评估方案是否能达成目标,所以我们只需要找到关于CQ1:方案的可行性问题的选项即可。
选项分析:
A选项:用火车和驳船运输是否会比货车便宜。火车和驳船是否比货车便宜讨论的是方案的副作用或者方案的可操作性问题,不是方案的可行性。
B选项:是否有比驳船更快的可以在Burland岛和大陆之前行动的船。是否有比当前的方案更好的方案并不能评估当前的方案。
C选项: Correct. 是否把货物运上驳船很费时间。本选项会增加方案的耗时,使得方案可能无法达成目标。
D选项:在近几年,从桥上通往Burland岛的车的数量是否稳定。本选项和方案无关。
E选项:向Burland岛运货物的货车是否空着回大陆。本选项和方案无关。
为什么不是因果推理
我觉得理解成因果推理也可以。以前helr说过方案推理是没有前提的,也就是不会有信息去评估方案的有效性,但是这题明显是有信息支持方案的。用因果推理就是证明因果之间有联系,C的话也可以理解成由因可以推出果。
其实我觉得老师的几种分类有时候界定很模糊~~我看以前写的prep的笔记和现在gmatla上的很多分类都对不上,几种方法的CQ方向换个角度理解也能解释得通~所以我感觉不用太纠结题型分类~能做对题就好
这个分类确实很微妙,较早版本的PREP08把这题分为因果推理
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论