Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
----> the question is about the doubt of the opponents , not about the reasoning in the argument so we can't choose A simply because postal workers may or may not be representative of the service workers!
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
----> it's clearly of the point ....the oppopents have no doubt about whether delivery of letters is the primary activity of postal service.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
-----> off the point.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
-----> yes! WE don't base the measure of productivy solely on quantity but also on quality of the service ---->"What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?" , isn't this question about quality of the delivery?!
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
-------> this is one-sided consideration ----> it's about quantity only, whereas the opponents raise the question about quality.