![]() Like many things in history, the QWERTY layout had fundamental contributing elements that became obscured across the span of time. This idea of the typewriter predates the office use that ultimately made it a standard business machine. Hence, it is the correct weakening choice.The typewriter was heralded as a new way to write with greater speed, fluency and readability. It states that there are additional costs involved in going through with the replacement and these costs will have to be incurred rather immediately. Clearly, option B does not weaken the author’s logic in any way.Ĭhoice D on the other hand, addresses the immediate cost reduction bit in the conclusion. This understanding, combined with the lower operating costs of EFCO keyboards, goes on to show the merits of the author’s suggestion. At best, this information could only vaguely indicate that there is not going to be much difference between the one-time acquisition cost of an EFCO keyboard and that of a standard key-board. We can’t conclude much about the price of a product from its manufacturing cost. Moving on, choice B only talks about the manufacturing costs of the two types of keyboards. This suggests that there is going to be a reduction in the operating costs of keyboards if we follow the author’s suggestion. However, choice B states that EFCO keyboards require less frequent repair than do standard keyboards. The question stem asks us to WEAKEN the conclusion that the replacement of standard keyboards with EFCO keyboards will result in immediate cost reduction. ![]() My comments: First of all, choice B, if anything, is in the opposite line of thought than our job in this question. Either typing cost will remain same or will go up. Please find below my comments on your analysis that:ī clearly says that EFCO is either as expensive as standard keyboards or less expensive than standard keyboards.hence, it follows that there will be NO immediate reduction of typing costs. I think, even when cost remains the same the argument is weakened. So, do we really required any evidence that must say that cost should go up. Whereas, option D clearly says that immediate typing cost will go up. Either typing cost will remain same or will go up.So, why B is discarded? Well it's kinda neutral, does no good to weaken the conclusion!Ĭan you please let me know what's wrong with option B?ī clearly says that EFCO is either as expensive as standard keyboards or less expensive than standard keyboards.hence, it follows that there will be NO immediate reduction of typing costs. Hang on, it talks some bad thing about transitioning to EFCO keyboards. This supports (if at all) the conclusion!, no good for us. No good, premise is not based on transition of keyboards but rather on fater typing/ less fatigue. (E) Novice typists can learn to use the EFCO keyboard in about the same amount of time it takes them to learn to use the standard keyboard. (D) The more training and experience an employee has had with the standard keyboard, the more costly it is to train that employee to use the EFCO keyboard. (C) The number of businesses and government agencies that use EFCO keyboards is increasing each year. ![]() (B) EFCO keyboards are no more expensive to manufacture than are standard keyboards and require less frequent repair than do standard keyboards. (A) People who use both standard and EFCO keyboards report greater difficulty in the transition from the EFCO keyboard to the standard keyboard than in the transition from the standard keyboard to the EFCO keyboard. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn above? Therefore, replacement of standard keyboards with the EFCO keyboard will result in an immediate reduction of typing costs. In comparison to the standard typewriter keyboard, the EFCO keyboard, which places the most-used keys nearest the typist’s strongest fingers, allows faster typing and results in less fatigue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |