Loading...
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?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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 passage starts by saying measuring service worker productivity is complex, then gives the postal worker example of a common productivity measure (more letters delivered = more productive). It then questions this measure by suggesting that if workers are also losing or delaying letters while delivering more, the measure might not actually show true productivity.
The standard way of measuring postal worker productivity (letters delivered per worker) might not be accurate because it doesn't account for negative factors like lost or delayed letters.
This isn't a traditional conclusion-premise argument. Instead, it's a critique that uses a hypothetical scenario (what if letters are also lost/delayed) to challenge an accepted productivity measure (letters delivered per worker). The logic flows: accepted measure → potential problem with that measure → doubt about the measure's validity.
Assumption - We need to find what underlying belief must be true for the author's objection to make sense. The author is questioning whether 'more letters delivered per worker = higher productivity' is actually a valid measure.
The argument deals with quality vs quantity measures - specifically whether counting delivered letters (quantity) accurately reflects true productivity without considering quality factors like lost or delayed mail.
Since this is an assumption question, we need to identify what must be true for the author's objection to work. The author objects to the productivity measure by pointing out that workers might lose/delay more letters while delivering more. For this objection to be valid, the author must assume certain things about what productivity should actually measure.
'Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.' This doesn't address the core of the author's objection. The author uses postal workers as just one example to illustrate the broader point about measuring productivity. Whether postal workers represent all service workers isn't what the author is questioning - the objection is specifically about how we measure productivity for any workers, not about the representativeness of the example.
'The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.' The author isn't questioning whether letter delivery is the main job of postal workers. The author accepts that delivering letters is what postal workers do - the objection is about how we measure how well they do that job. The argument focuses on measurement methodology, not job descriptions.
'Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.' This completely misses the point. The author's objection isn't about whether we should measure individual workers versus groups of workers. The objection is about what factors should be included when measuring productivity (quality vs. just quantity), regardless of whether we're measuring individuals or categories.
'The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.' This perfectly captures what the author is doubting. The standard measure (letters delivered per worker) ignores quality factors like lost or delayed mail. The author's objection - pointing out that workers might lose/delay more letters while delivering more - directly challenges the idea that we can ignore service quality when measuring productivity. For the author's objection to make sense, the author must doubt that quality can be appropriately ignored.
'The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.' The author isn't saying that the number of letters delivered is irrelevant. Instead, the author is saying that this number alone isn't sufficient - we also need to consider other factors like lost or delayed letters. The objection is about the completeness of the measure, not the relevance of letter count.