[問題]Fei Fei-22

[henryhao]

22. In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an average salary paid by its principle competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.
Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?
(A) Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors.
(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
(C) The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
(D) The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.

題目中說某報的記者薪水只跟同業的主要競爭對手平均薪水相等，某報主管辯解說這些記者薪水不足部分可以由工作中所受的訓練獲得補償，問以下何者可以反駁主管的理由。

答案(B)，此報當中大部分記者已經在此工作超過10年。
這樣的意思是，他們的訓練只有在剛到任的時候才有嗎？
（不是工作中持續有的在職訓練）
因為這樣才可以合理的WEAKEN主管的理由？

先謝謝各位的指教。[size=18][/size]

[Pufa]

我的想法跟你一樣，
其他的選項太無關了。

[zuckzhc]

since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.

(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.

一點補充,所謂trainging thru assignment 是指透過工作中所獲的的學習,也就是俗稱的"on-the -job trainging",應該不是說是剛到職才有的訓練

做了十年了,已經是超級老鳥,透過工作能學習的自然有限

[autumn713]

想法同zuckzhc
且工作十年已經是老鳥了 所以不應該只領跟競爭對手的"平均"薪水一樣的薪水
所以反駁成功

[cooljay.lin]

基本上 我個人覺得題目出得不是很好
其實你們有沒有發現，與OG的出題方式作比較，B只是較好的答案(其他都顯得無關)，卻不能算標準答案
因為 "工作十年後所能透過工作學習到的東西有限"，只是大家額外的推論，也就是說，
利用 "工作超過十年" 辯駁 "透過工作訓練以補償短少的薪水" 其實只是間接原因，並無法直接削弱
除非 "學習到的東西有限" 這個推論也成立；但話說回來，為什麼是十年? 不是八年或五年? 這又是令人質疑的地方了

[cooljay.lin]

基本上 我個人覺得題目出得不是很好
其實你們有沒有發現，與OG的出題方式作比較，B只是較好的答案(其他都顯得無關)，卻不能算標準答案
因為 "工作十年後所能透過工作學習到的東西有限"，只是大家額外的推論，也就是說，
利用 "工作超過十年" 辯駁 "透過工作訓練以補償短少的薪水" 其實只是間接原因，並無法直接削弱
除非 "學習到的東西有限" 這個推論也成立；但話說回來，為什麼是十年? 不是八年或五年? 這又是令人質疑的地方了

[chencraig0227]

非常的認同!!

工作十年之後所得到的assignment之valuable trainning就會無法
compensate薪水的短缺?
既然強調事assignment，就代表示可以由公司決定的，那就是報社可
以決定assignment進而決定value的多少。所以搞不好老鳥真的可以拿
到比較有價值的case進而有更高的trainning。

我覺得這題有邏輯上的瑕疵。 這個選項在OG應當屬於較為無關。