GMAT作文機經(jīng)整理：調(diào)查認為投訴可以無視 【航空】.

　　3月2日GMAT機經(jīng)已換，澳際小編為大家整理3月份GMAT作文機經(jīng)，由于最近內(nèi)容還較少，考生朋友可以先看看，隨時關(guān)注網(wǎng)站最新的更新。

　　【AA39】

　　The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum:

　　“On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines last year filed a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures. This means that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s passengers.”

　　Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

　　Avia航空的部門備忘錄：

　　平均地，去年乘坐Avia的1000個乘客中有9個針對我們的行李處理流程寫了投訴信。這說明雖然有大約1%的乘客對這一流程表示不滿，乘客的主體對它還是滿意的。所以對流程的重新審查對我們要保持和提高Avia的乘客數(shù)這一目標不是很重要的。

　　【參考思路】

　　1. Gratuitous assumption：因為1%寫了投訴信就假設(shè)只有1%的客人不滿，就假設(shè)主體滿意，不對the 99 percent of passengers who did not complain were happy

　　2. All things are equal:去年的調(diào)查不能代表未來

　　3. False causal relationship：因為滿意度和乘客數(shù)量無因果關(guān)系，不能把這當作確定目標的因素 (這點不容易找。)

　　4. Either or choice:因為1%不寫投訴信就說另一半是滿意的不對，也有很多乘客可以表示不滿意但沒有寫投訴信。

　　5. 對數(shù)字的攻擊，千分之9. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted.

　　【參考范文】

　　The conclusion in this Avia Airlines memorandum is that a review of the airline’s baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia passengers. The author’s line of reasoning is that the great majority of Avia passengers are happy with baggage handling at the airline because only one percent of passengers who traveled on Avia last year filed a complaint about Avia’s procedures. This argument is problematic in two important respects.

　　First, the argument turns on the assumption that the 99 percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the airline’s baggage-handling procedures. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. The fact that, on the average, 9 out of 1000 passengers took the time and fort to formally complain indicates nothing about the experiences or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is possible that many passengers were displeased but too busy to formally complain, while others had no opinion at all. Lacking more complete information about passengers’ attitudes, we cannot assume that the great majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.

　　Secondly, in the absence of information about the number of passengers per flight and about the complaint records of competing airlines, the statistics presented in the memorandum might distort the seriousness of the problem. Given that most modern aircraft carry as many as 300 to 500 passengers, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or 5 complaints per flight. The author unfairly trivializes this record. Moreover, the author fails to compare Avia’s record with those of its competitors. It is possible that a particular competitor received virtually no baggage-handling complaints last year. If so, Avia’s one percent complaint rate might be significant enough to motivate customers to switch to another airline.

　　In conclusion, the author has failed to demonstrate that a review of the baggage-handling procedures at Avia Airlines is not needed to maintain or increase the number of Avia’s passengers. To strengthen the argument, the author must at the very least provide affirmative evidence that most Avia passengers last year were indeed happy with baggage-handling procedures. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the numbers of Avia passengers per flight last year and about the baggage-handling records of Avia’s competitors.

　　以上就是關(guān)于調(diào)查認為投訴可以無視 【航空】的GMAT作文機經(jīng)的相關(guān)介紹，考生朋友可以有選擇的選用，最后祝大家都能考出好成績。