求助，始终弄不明白的二道OG逻辑OG-79,OG-181

doris_tt · 发表于 2003-9-2 17:08:00

79. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can
hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that
the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that
is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted
explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Explian
Since the question elicits a reply, the question was presumably heard, but presumably not by
the part that is deaf. The explanation’s obvious weakness, therefore, is that it fails to indicate
why the part that replies would reply as if it were the part that is deaf. Choice A points to this
failure and is the best answer.
Choice B does not challenge the explanation itself, but the need for an explanation in the first
place. Choices C and D raise pertinent questions concerning the facts described, but do not
address the proffered explanation of those facts. Choice E points to a question to which the
attempted explanation gives rises, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

181.
Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars
so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this
indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.
Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being les caffeine in each
chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.
The candy manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health
advocate’s argument because it
(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the
manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of
caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer heal advocate’s argument as though it were about each candy bar
rather than about the manufacturer’s candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate’s conclusion without giving any reason
to believe that the advocate’s reasoning is unsound

181.
In the dialogue, the candy manufacturer tries to rebut the claim that caffeine is added to
chocolate candy bars in order to keep consumers addicted. The rebuttal is that the caffeine
added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture. The question asks
you to identify why this rebuttal is inadequate.
Choice A is the best answer. The candy manufacturer’s rebuttal amounts to an admission that
the candy bars could be manufactured to contain less caffeine than they do. Therefore, the
crucial issue for assessing the health advocate’s account of the reason for adding the caffeine
is whether the amount of caffeine added is enough to make the candy addictive.
Although choices B and D both describe possible flaws in a response, neither of them is a
correct description of the response the manufacturer actually gives. With respect to choice C,
although the manufacturer does not specify how the caffeine is lost, the mechanism of
manufacture is not relevant to the issue that the health advocate raises. With respect to choice
E, the manufacturer does not give any reason for thinking the advocate’s reason is unsound.
But contrary to what this choice says, the manufacturer does not actually contradict the health
advocate’s conclusion.

anchoret · 发表于 2003-9-2 21:41:00

能问得具体些吗？究竟哪里不是很明白

liu9903 · 发表于 2003-9-2 23:47:00

79，A：为什么被催眠的人不回答”是的“？因为文中说，被催眠的人身体的各个部分被分离了，那回答的部分怎么能知道别的部分听不到呢？所以，被催眠的人应该回答”听到了“因为，回答的部分只知道自己这个部分听到了，不知道别的分离的部分听不到才对。
181，消费者指出，生产的糖果中的咖啡因会使人上瘾，而厂商回答咖啡因的含量低。并没有说糖果中的咖啡因含量会不会使人上瘾。

不知道我的回答有没有用。

doris_tt · 发表于 2003-9-3 23:45:00

哦，谢谢， 181题看来我是一直理解错了：）谢谢。
关于79，我原来选的是D，一些大侠的解释也都品味过，可是还是糊里糊涂的：（

Andrea625 · 发表于 2004-6-15 15:40:00

181厂商的辩解回避了问题的核心：是否会让人上瘾。答非所问，厂商的意图在于通过转移话题，误导你接受其观点：加的不多。

小鱼儿 · 发表于 2004-8-11 23:26:00

终于弄懂79题了，谢谢liu9903大侠！

ercizhang · 发表于 2005-1-15 17:31:00

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?

answer yes才是真正的dissociated,即这个回答的人只管自己是否听见,而Some theorists’ attempted explanation 中说是分开的人,却回答为no,仿佛是在替另一个回答,其实还是没有分开.这是Some theorists自相矛盾的地方.所以被A选项challenged

victortrojan · 发表于 2005-1-27 07:06:00

請教79題OG對E的解釋, (抱歉,算是閱讀了)

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

我不懂上句話中 gives rise 所指為何,請大家幫我解惑,感謝

gaofengusa · 发表于 2005-3-9 15:52:00

以下是引用victortrojan在2005-1-27 7:06:00的发言：

請教79題OG對E的解釋, (抱歉,算是閱讀了)

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

我不懂上句話中 gives rise 所指為何,請大家幫我解惑,感謝

上句话可以改写成

Choice E points to a question which the attemped explanation gives rise to(为固定用法，意义为“导致，引起”)

gigiga0118 · 发表于 2005-7-5 19:38:00

繼續問

我想知道E

Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

我不懂E的意思

也不明白文中對E的解釋

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

可以哪位nn替我說明一下呢???

本贴相关题目 OG-2015-CR-62OG-2015-CR-62
OG-13-CR-62
OG-12-CR-63
... (KAWX)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

求助，始终弄不明白的二道OG逻辑OG-79,OG-181