Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why

John Robertson

Q: Why did the consultants fail to fix the damaged goods in transit problem, after they advised more packing be used.

Task: find an answer that explains why more packing lead to still damaged goods, and actually a small increase- likely the packing had something to do with it, although correlation doesn't mean causation always.

A: WRONG. affects company's profits, nothing to do with the damaged goods in transit (the prompt gives nothing about packing employees were laid off and the remainder overworked to compensate for packing supply purchases, which might give this one some legs).

B: Correct: direct cause -> effect of more packing -> more damaged goods. The packing has to be done properly, not necessarily more of it.

C: WRONG. The prompt states that the more packing led to more damages. This answer is saying that more packing does not really influence the ease of opening the package (which could be a point of damage) so there's no explanation for the more packing -> more damage info the prompt gave you.

D: WRONG. The goods are likely constant, i.e. they were shipped before and after the packing change. The prompt doesn't say the company switched packing and also entered the electronic business, so this is sort of irrelevant. No explanation of the more packing->more damage (implied, product shipped constant)

E: WRONG. irrelevant, customers left after this happened likely, but no explanation of the packing issue.

Jan 4, 2017 • Comment