ChaseDream

标题: [求助]feifei-45 [打印本页]

作者: remona9t 时间: 2005-6-9 16:25
标题: [求助]feifei-45

45. Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

This reasoning in the commissioner’s argument is flawed because this argument B

A. relies on information that is far from certain

B. confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution

C. inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

D. inappropriately employs language that is vague

E. takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

Solve the problem --> decrease expenditure (only choice is to decrease expenditure)是原文的前提；其结论是提出了一个降低开销的方法，并指出：Solve the problem-->adopt this plan(only if we adopt this plan), 我看不出来这样的推理有什么问题，不太理解答案所说的将必要条件当成充分条件的错误，因为结论也只是说是解决财政问题的一个必要条件啊（only if）

请nn指正！

作者: remona9t 时间: 2005-6-9 17:28
自己顶一下

作者: remona9t 时间: 2005-6-10 10:31
再顶一下

作者: remona9t 时间: 2005-6-14 14:10
再顶一下

作者: likui 时间: 2005-6-15 11:18

我也不是很懂，只是觉得吧~

要solve the problem有两种方法：

第一，increase，被comissionor否定了；第二，decrease，这个可行；

最后，comissionor以一家之言，用了only if否定了others可以提供increase方法的可能性

作者: likui 时间: 2005-6-15 11:24
想得更偏一点，就是adopt这个plan，和切实产生效果之间存在adequate和required的问题。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)