is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time.
 
 

The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that ？
(A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a “fast cycle” production line
 
(B) the strategy of “fast cycle time” would require fundamental rethinking of product design
 
(C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate
 
profits for stockholders
 
(D) “fast cycle time” could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production
 
cycle
 
(E) “fast cycle time” is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory
 
答案A 
--------------------------------------

--  作者：lawyer_1
--  发布时间：2004-10-20 20:49:00
-- 
设计这道题的人心眼很坏。搞了一个充分必要的前提，很迷惑人，实际却没用到，是个附加前提，或者说是背景知识。实际的推理（相对于问题：问题问的是质量）是：因为“Fast cycle time”设计用于消除生产中的 bottlenecks and delays ，所以该措施能确保质量。其实这句话就是说该措施能确保质量。A说任何错误能被该措施阻止。将A取非，有些错误不能给该措施阻止，则结论（该措施能确保质量）当然不能成立。其实这道题作者在耍语言游戏，绕着说，其实没什麽逻辑推理。也没什麽前提，直接有个结论，这种题的假设答案就是将该答案换句话说一遍。其实你不觉得结论和A其实意思差不多吗。
--------------------------------------

--  作者：paopao
--  发布时间：2004-10-20 22:09:00
-- 
not strike---> increase wage---> sell subsidiies

--------------------------------------

--  作者：leeon
--  发布时间：2004-10-20 22:21:00
-- 
Paopa your reasoning is right here, but here, as you mentioned above, not strike is a sufficient condition to the conclusion sell subsidiaries, not a necessary condition to the conclusion. In assumption questions, the answer should be a required condition to the conclusion, not sufficient condition.
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-20 22:23:34编辑过]
--------------------------------------

--  作者：leeon
--  发布时间：2004-10-20 22:26:00
-- 
Faint!  I\'m sure I typed "Paopao" in the above post. But it always show as Paopa whatever I changed. 
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-20 22:26:54编辑过]
--------------------------------------

--  作者：paopao
--  发布时间：2004-10-21 2:39:00
-- 
leeon, i am still confused . Hope that lawyer can give some explanation .
Leeon, good luck.
--------------------------------------

--  作者：lawyer_1
--  发布时间：2004-10-21 4:30:00
-- 
关键明白该题的类型，这是JUSTIFY CONCLUSION题型，也可以说是充分性题型，也就是那个选项使结论合理推出。其TEST为：前提+答案=结论。
原文的前提：N