Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
OA after sometime. Please explain your pick in detail!
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Postal Service
This topic has expert replies
-
Geva@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
- Thanked: 378 times
- Followed by:123 members
- GMAT Score:760
Gods, I wish I had written this question - it's a good twisterGmatKiss wrote:Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
OA after sometime. Please explain your pick in detail!
I'm watching this topic, but am waiting with my proposed explanation to let other forum members have a go first.
-
theforrestgump
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:29 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
GmatKiss wrote:Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general. -- This doesn't cast any doubt on the productivity measures.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service. -- Even if this statement is true.It doesn't cast any doubt over the productivity measure.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals. -- Not relevent
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity. -- Correct -- If we are measuring productivity only by calculating the number of letter per postal man but do not consider the number of letters lost then it is going to affect the quality of service.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers. -- It actually supports the statement.
OA after sometime. Please explain your pick in detail!
-
1947
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:24 pm
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:1 members
Argument is that quantity is not the only way to judge productivity quality also is.GmatKiss wrote:Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
A is a fact no doubts on this.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
This ignores the quality.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
No way linked to this argument.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
This looks into quality.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
Not true.
OA after sometime. Please explain your pick in detail!
so ans should be D.
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button. Thanks
So, if you want to formalize it, here it is
Conclusion : No. Delivered = Productivity
Counter Argument : What about lost letters?
And the question mentions "doubts about the truth..."
In this case, it is asking for the assumption. Assumption has to be true. If it is not, the conclusion will not stand
Lost # of letters is related to quality of service. So choice D) correctly states the assumption.
Conclusion : No. Delivered = Productivity
Counter Argument : What about lost letters?
And the question mentions "doubts about the truth..."
In this case, it is asking for the assumption. Assumption has to be true. If it is not, the conclusion will not stand
Lost # of letters is related to quality of service. So choice D) correctly states the assumption.
Postal services all across the world are pretty awesome. Thanks for sharing the information.
liteblue.usps.gov
liteblue.usps.gov
