SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（三）Main Point

sdcar2010

No shortcut. Read more English articles EVERYDAY.

For CR passages, focus on premise and main conclusion.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/18 9:46:05)

Hi sdcar2010
I've got a question with (2）
is the flaw of (E) attributing Johnson to Dickson's Editors, so irrelevant?

-- by 会员 terry9115 (2011/8/25 15:37:58)

No.  Johnson is one of the editors to Dickson's work. The problem with E is that it's too broad. Johnson was partially right by pointing out errors made by others.

sdcar2010

额。。。怎么发了两遍？


请教sdcar, #2 A中Johnson is right in criticizing 这是是正确还是错误，是对应这原文的Johnson is on firm ground 么？？A选项是否仅仅equally（因为原文没说程度）一个错误？

是正确
是对应这原文
是因equally

另外，我把#4分析了一下，NN请看分析的对么？Recently, environmentalists have argued that the government should stop adding fluoride to our water supply（background）. I think this is wrong.（conclusion） I support adding fluoride to our water supply for the same reason I support adding iodine to common table salt. I admit that the addition of iodine to table salt has proven benefits and is far less controversial than the addition of fluoride to the water supply.（premise）Still（转折？）, I wonder if the same environmentalists who argue against fluoride would argue against iodine.（concession？）

Recently, environmentalists have argued that the government should stop adding fluoride to our water supply（opposing opinion）. I think this is wrong.（conclusion） I support adding fluoride to our water supply for the same reason I support adding iodine to common table salt. (premise) I admit that the addition of iodine to table salt has proven benefits and is far less controversial than the addition of fluoride to the water supply.（concession）Still（转折）, I wonder if the same environmentalists who argue against fluoride would argue against iodine.（premise）

You got the main conclusion right and that is the key for main point questions. Good work. The rest assignments of functions are helpful but are not critical, at least for this question.

-- by 会员 UlysessHope (2011/10/23 16:48:05)

sdcar2010

Support for C) in question one cannot be found in the passage. Main point is must-be-true

Check 17th floor/reply for more details.

sdcar2010

NN, many thanks for your sharing and could you help me confirm if i have got the points.

Encountering all of the options, firsly, i should pick out the irrelevant ones that the information appear in the background information or opinions hold other than the author.

Secondly, figure out the disturbing content such as details something represented in premises or intermediate conclusion if any.

in most cases, the remaining one will be the best answer and we can test it according to principle posted by Lawyer.

Look forward to your reply and i am digesting other posts in this series.

-- by 会员 翠儿卡 (2011/11/11 22:37:42)

Sound good. If you eliminate all the bad apple, the one remaining is the good one!

sdcar2010

1) As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe (opinion). In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own (background). Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire (opposing opinion). I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective (main conclusion).

The author’s main point is that

(A) Although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) The temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe
(E) Disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States

As highlighted above, the flow of the argument is Author's opinion, Background, opposing opinion, conclusion. I should point out the way the main conclusion is presented is pretty unusual by using a figurative language. If you compare the opposing opinion with the author's conclusion, you would notice that effectively, the author proclaims that the opposing's opinion is wrong. And if you negate the opposing opinion, you would get the main conclusion, which states in choice E).

As for C), long-term losses are not mentioned anywhere in the passage. However, main point question is must-be-true type. So C) is wrong.

sdcar2010

Author's opinion: I believe in something

Author's conclusion: Whly I believe in that thing.

sdcar2010

This is a typical wrong answer type of "half right, half wrong."  Does the passage talk about the safety of fluoride and iodine?

(B) Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine

4)why not choose B? thks!

-- by 会员 eejqchen (2012/4/25 20:46:17)

sdcar2010

1) Common structures for arguments:
Opinion. However, conclusion. Premise.
Opinion. Although concession, conclusion. Premise.

Notice the position of the opinion.  Also notice that concession can follow the keywords like but, however and although.

2) Another structure for concession:
Conclusion. But, concession.
Example: Your statements are logically correct.  But you might want to pay attention to the context when analyzing the structure.

sdcar2010

Although the actor who plays Harlequin the clown gives a performance very reminiscent of the twentieth-century American comedian Groucho Marx (concession), Marx’s comic style was very much within the comic acting tradition that had begun in sixteenth-century Italy (premise).

The structure of the above sentence:
Although (concession), (opposing opinion as a premise).

Concession: the actor acts similar to Marx (who is not a 16th-centrury Italian actor himself),
Opposing opinion: Marx's style is very similar to 16th-centrury Italian acting tradition.

The deduction: the actor acts similar to 16th-centrury Italian acting atradition.
This deduction agrees with or support the director's claim.  Therefore, it supports the director's claim.

Type: role