GMAT作文机经整理：调查认为投诉可以无视 【咖啡+航空】.

　　GMAT作文机经整体来说受换库影响不是很大，但是还是会有一些新题的，考生朋友可以将最近两三个月的GMAT作文机经都拿出来看看，为此澳际小编特收集整理GMAT作文机经分享给大家，希望对大家有所帮助。

　　1、咖啡：

　　【考古】同11月JJ 15

　　V1 Hot Cafe chain的customer service division给CEO的report里面说公司customer feedback website 上可以发表客户的不满之类，这个网址印在给客人的receipt上，所以他们可以很容易的登录上去。然后现在在10000多的service里面只有100几个complaint，和十位数的suggestion，所以得到的结论是客人对该公司fully satisfied，and there is no need to evaluate or improve our services.

　　V2 一个hot cup cafe 的customer division report：他们把公司的website地址放在receipt上面，而且很明显，顾客都应该看得到。但是当这个公司发现在网站上面complaints和评价的数量很少的时候 大约都是170个左右，相比起自己开通那个网站之后卖的30000多杯咖啡来说，太少了。所以公司认为提高服务是不必须的。

　　【参考思路】

　　1. 错误假设。将网址打在receipt上不一定就会让每个人都看到。也不能说明网站就容易进入.比如, 网址印在很不显眼的地方; 或者比如网站因为技术原因不好打开，不好提交意见等等。

　　2. 错误假设。不是每个有意见的客户都会到网站上写complaint的，因此也许实际不满意的用户数量要远远不止这个数目。有的很多人对咖啡店不满都不会反映的，他们只会默默地不来了，所以这些人不满意也不会说

　　3. Survey错误。超过3000的销量不能说明问题，要和以前的销售量对比或者和有可比性的竞争者对比才能说明问题。

　　4.所以一旦有人有建议和complaints说明情况还蛮严重的，应该采取措施去改进

　　2、航空：

　　【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航空的部门备忘录：

　　平均地，去年乘坐Avia的1000个乘客中有9个针对我们的行李处理流程写了投诉信。这说明虽然有大约1%的乘客对这一流程表示不满，乘客的主体对它还是满意的。所以对流程的重新审查对我们要保持和提高Avia的乘客数这一目标不是很重要的。

　　【参考思路】

　　1. Gratuitous assumption：因为1%写了投诉信就假设只有1%的客人不满，就假设主体满意，不对the 99 percent of passengers who did not complain were happy

　　2. All things are equal:去年的调查不能代表未来

　　3. False causal relationship：因为满意度和乘客数量无因果关系，不能把这当作确定目标的因素 (这点不容易找。)

　　4. Either or choice:因为1%不写投诉信就说另一半是满意的不对，也有很多乘客可以表示不满意但没有写投诉信。

　　5. 对数字的攻击，千分之9. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted.

　　【参考范文】

　　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1月份的GMAT作文机经部分，考生朋友可以根据文中的意思自己选择性练习，看自己拿到题目后是否会做，最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。