ChaseDream

标题: gwd-7-5 [打印本页]
作者: sendme    时间: 2004-9-28 06:34
标题: gwd-7-5

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children.  Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.  Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.






Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?








  1. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.

  2. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.

  3. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

  4. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.

  5. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

answer is  C, but i can't figure out the difference between B and C.


pls let me know.


  


作者: robertchu    时间: 2004-9-28 09:29

B and C are clearly different.

B is not relevant to the original argument.

C, on the other hand, is an assumption of the original argument.  Try deny C, we get "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago."  If so, this could have caused most of the reported increase by nurses, and the original argument that "either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago" would fall apart.  So, C is an assuption, and the best answer.

作者: 携隐    时间: 2004-9-28 10:17
B涉及到一个无关比较，就是这种化学物质和其他物质的比较，原文focus在于这种物质是否引起过敏症，而不是在于这种和那种的比较。
作者: sendme    时间: 2004-9-28 10:32

i got it!

B is relevent or out of scope,  C is best.

but little confused with "no mare likely"  in B and "not more likely" in C.

thanks!

作者: ethyl    时间: 2005-5-23 19:02

A：护士多少跟有多少学生送过去没有关系，不会说今年护士少了，学生们有过敏的就克制一下吧


B：我觉得是两个无关比较；其他学生以及其他过敏都无关，有关系的是十年前与现在


C：取非削弱


D：在家里和公寓里，无关


E：比较的是学校内部的比例，如果结论是在整个城市中过敏的病人中，现在过敏的小学生比十年前的比例升高了，那么E是一个正确选项

作者: remona9t    时间: 2005-6-7 10:07

我觉得E错误不是像5楼说的：E比较的是学校内部的比例，原文讲的是Elementary school nurses in Renston repots that..., 说的就是在Renston地区的小学，而E的意思是说在Renston地区上小学的人数并不比10年前所占人口的比例大，问题在于E说的是一个比例，而不是一个绝对数，有可能现在总的地区人口数下降，而上小学的人数不变，可所占总人口数的比例还增高了（如E）,


我觉得如果E说的是现在上小学的人数不比10年前上小学的人数多，则也是一个取非削弱。


E的错误是把比例当成了绝对数


作者: a-ga    时间: 2005-6-29 19:14
标题: 回复：（sendme）gwd-7-5

我還是不懂...為何b取非可以削弱??我怎麼看都是支持啊?

作者: anitahsu    时间: 2005-7-2 11:09
The argument has not mentioned anything about comparing to the other substances, thus B is clearly irrelevant.
作者: advantage    时间: 2005-10-18 18:44
以下是引用remona9t在2005-6-7 10:07:00的发言：

我觉得E错误不是像5楼说的：E比较的是学校内部的比例，原文讲的是Elementary school nurses in Renston repots that..., 说的就是在Renston地区的小学，而E的意思是说在Renston地区上小学的人数并不比10年前所占人口的比例大，问题在于E说的是一个比例，而不是一个绝对数，有可能现在总的地区人口数下降，而上小学的人数不变，可所占总人口数的比例还增高了（如E）,


我觉得如果E说的是现在上小学的人数不比10年前上小学的人数多，则也是一个取非削弱。


E的错误是把比例当成了绝对数




make sense

作者: differentchen    时间: 2006-1-27 10:58

Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.  


我觉得B错的关键是对题干所给条件的反驳,这种答案通常是不能作为ASSUMPTION的.


因为这题我也错选了B,回过头再看的时候才发现这个问题.不知NN们以为如何?

作者: amber0919    时间: 2006-5-12 16:42
结论的具体性是在 those chemicals. 所以对别的物质感染与否是无关的。
作者: yolaunndalyy    时间: 2006-8-25 06:30
C里的可能性指什么？感染了就送医，不感染就不送，有什么可能性现在感染的不比以前感染的要多送医呢？我本来选了E，后来发现E的比例不对，也只有C可以选了。
作者: liuyang1984    时间: 2006-10-7 17:23

C项取非，现在过敏的孩子比以前更可能被送到学校的医务室，也就是说不一定是过敏的孩子多造成的。所以削弱原文。

想了好半天才想出来的，做题的时候忘了取非削弱了

作者: sunqi851217    时间: 2006-11-8 11:21
我想问一下A，护士少了每个护士接待的学生不就多了吗？这不是一个原因吗？
作者: dreamchaserdan    时间: 2006-12-16 23:11
以下是引用sunqi851217在2006-11-8 11:21:00的发言：
我想问一下A，护士少了每个护士接待的学生不就多了吗？这不是一个原因吗？
题目中：Elementary school nurses不是指每个护士，所以护士数量是个无关选项。
作者: batmanhm    时间: 2008-5-12 21:15
讨论的是children,关护士什么事...
作者: love13佳佳    时间: 2008-7-10 21:20
这题不是assumption么？怎么会削弱啊。。。一直纠结在这个上面了。。。
作者: yifeir    时间: 2008-7-31 20:29
以下是引用love13佳佳在2008-7-10 21:20:00的发言：
这题不是assumption么？怎么会削弱啊。。。一直纠结在这个上面了。。。

我看GWD的讲义上面说假设选项如果不止一个有关选项时候

1如果只是求同 即为正确答案

2不止一个求同，则取非。

正确选项特征是：

1答案取非后，使原文一定不对的。（此题应该是这种）

2判断哪个选项取非后说的话更绝对化。

3 哪个选项不绝对（取非前）

我只能依照这个看了，不知道说的对不，大家继续讨论吧。

作者: sallyyou    时间: 2008-10-3 18:09

不明白啊，题干中不是说 Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years，现在被送去治疗的学生比十年前多了么，为什么还选C，现在对化学物质过敏的孩子和十年前相比不太可能送到校医务室，那取非，也没看出来削弱啊？ 另外结论中的either...or..不是要么。。要么...的意思么。。。

 

作者: sallyyou    时间: 2008-10-3 18:12
啊，我好像明白了，either...or...是要么。。否则的意思。。。。ai
作者: jonathan1987    时间: 2008-11-12 09:19
以下是引用sendme在2004-9-28 6:34:00的发言：

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children.  Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.  Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.




Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
  2. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
  3. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
  4. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
  5. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

answer is  C, but i can't figure out the difference between B and C.

pls let me know.

  


这题中,ade 都是无关选项,都可以排除

就是b和c之间的选择, 一开始看b好像是排除他因, 排除是其他物质引起过敏,但是仔细看看题目,上面说Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.

说明已经是那种物质的过敏, 所以b说关于其他物质的过敏就是无关选项了,

而c说,送去校医那里的病的程度都是差不多的,不会说十年前是病的差不多休克才送去校医那里,而现在是有点症状就送去校医那里,排除了程度上的不同, 是原文的assumption

作者: icindy    时间: 2009-3-19 18:56

我觉得E错误不是像5楼说的：E比较的是学校内部的比例，原文讲的是Elementary school nurses in Renston repots that..., 说的就是在Renston地区的小学，而E的意思是说在Renston地区上小学的人数并不比10年前所占人口的比例大，问题在于E说的是一个比例，而不是一个绝对数，有可能现在总的地区人口数下降，而上小学的人数不变，可所占总人口数的比例还增高了（如E）,

我觉得如果E说的是现在上小学的人数不比10年前上小学的人数多，则也是一个取非削弱。

E的错误是把比例当成了绝对数

但是护士报告的时候说的也是比例上升了。

作者: icindy    时间: 2009-3-19 19:00

两个比例不一样，我搞错了~~确实选C

作者: yangmars    时间: 2011-5-7 19:12
这个解释我看懂了，顶
作者: xieguodong    时间: 2011-6-11 11:31
一点心得：假设是加强的一种，但假设和加强的区别在于假设一定会和前提有关。在结论前面的前提是最重要的前提。在此题中，结论therefore前面的前提和school.nurse有关。BDE都无涉及此概念，无关。A，C涉及了。符合2/5的原则，而A明显不能加强。C即为答案。且可以进行取非削弱的验证，如果取非C，则结论就不成立了。



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3