请教:做infer题和Assumption题思路的区别

最近做逻辑题,发现经常错在Infer题上, 自己觉得很多选项和Assumption差不多,另外怎样区分infer和conclusion题呢? 请做过总结或分析的NN们指教, 要是能有几个例子说明一下,就更好了!

多谢!

顶

顶上来，这个问题很想知道，谢谢牛牛！

一个是从上到下的

一个是从下到上的

顶一个：）

说一下自己的理解：

（1）同意南瓜所言，Infer是通过原文推题目，而Assumption是通过题目推原文。

（2）个人感觉真正做题的时候没有必要把infer和conclusion分得那样细。

如果要分的话，我觉得infer是原文推理的外延，conclusion是原文推理的内涵，换句话说，infer题目的答案可以只针对原文中前提和推理中的某一点，并且可以有一定的发散，但是conclusion题目的答案是要基于原文中的所有前提和推理所得，并且不能超出原文的内容。

两者的关注点不同，infer关注的是细节，conclusion关注的是原文的整体推理过程。

举个小例子，

Infer: FF69题说到：

Argument:  History textbooks frequently need to be revised. The reasons for this are clear: new discoveries of documents and remains, the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories, the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data, and the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts. Any of these considerations may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating.

Question:  Which one of the following can be inferred from the argument in the passage?

这是infer题目，答案只需要从一点入手即可，并且可以有一定发散。

Correct Answer:  The interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science.

这个答案仅从上文中黄色部分就可以推出。从对至今未被发现的自然原理的应用揭示了历史课本的不充分性这一事实，推出历史事件的解释受到自然科学的影响。

Conclusion: FF84题说到

Argument:   Some cleaning fluids, synthetic carpets, wall paneling, and other products release toxins, such as formaldehyde and benzene, into the household air supply. This is not a problem in well-ventilated houses, but it is a problem in houses that are so well insulated that they trap toxins as well as heat. Recent tests, however, demonstrate that houseplants remove some household toxins from the air and thereby eliminate their danger. In one test, 20 large plants eliminated formaldehyde from a small, well-insulated house.

Question:   The passage is structured to lead to which one of the following conclusions?

这是conclusion题目，答案要综合题目的前提和推理，并且不能超出原文意思。

Correct Answer:   Keeping houseplants can compensate for some of the negative effects of poor ventilation.

正确答案综合了原文中的关键的两个前提（事实）： （1）毒素对于通风不好的房间是个问题，对于通风好的房间没有影响。（2）家种植物可以去除一定的毒素并消除他们的危险。原文中其他两个前提（事实），即第一句和最后一句也并不是没有用处，他限制了上面两个关键前提中的毒素必须是同一种毒素formaldehyde。综上，我们才能够确定的推出家种植物可以弥补通风不好的不足。

如果原文没有限制同一种毒素，原文变成了这样：

Some cleaning fluids, synthetic carpets, wall paneling, and other products release toxins, such as formaldehyde and benzene, into the household air supply. This is not a problem in well-ventilated houses, but it is a problem in houses that are so well insulated that they trap toxins as well as heat. Recent tests, however, demonstrate that houseplants remove some household toxins from the air and thereby eliminate their danger.Therefore,Keeping houseplants can compensate for some of the negative effects of poor ventilation.

我们可以做一道weaken结论题目，家种植物所消除的那些毒素，不是formaldehyde。他对formaldehyde这东西根本不感冒：）

呵呵，见笑了。

多谢julianfl 解答了一直困扰我的一个问题

但是feifei的题目的祥解版里面貌似是将infer和assumption看成一类作的

7楼说的太好了

但是有个问题不明白:

如果原文没有限制同一种毒素，原文变成了这样：

Some cleaning fluids, synthetic carpets, wall paneling, and other products release toxins, such as formaldehyde and benzene, into the household air supply. This is not a problem in well-ventilated houses, but it is a problem in houses that are so well insulated that they trap toxins as well as heat. Recent tests, however, demonstrate that houseplants remove some household toxins from the air and thereby eliminate their danger.Therefore,Keeping houseplants can compensate for some of the negative effects of poor ventilation.

我们可以做一道weaken结论题目，家种植物所消除的那些毒素，不是formaldehyde。他对formaldehyde这东西根本不感冒：）

为什么可以这样weaken呢?