ChaseDream

标题: 一道曼哈顿CR题求解 [打印本页]

作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-3 16:23
标题: 一道曼哈顿CR题求解

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

		The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
		Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
		For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.
		Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.
		The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

看不懂它的逻辑链

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-3-3 19:47
这题挺有意思，看了好久，估计考试我也做不出来。。。。。
这题的破题点居然是一个单词，真服了。。。。
our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children
solely....的意思就是the best interests of the children是唯一的“因”，一定不会有“他因”affect their decisions.
B就是排除了有“他因”的可能：那些远远高于领养家庭标准的父母都是在申请开始之后才认识领养中心的工作人员的（不是早就认识领养中心的工作人员，这样这种私人关系影响到领养结果的可能性就大了）。
验证：
如果B取否，则solely成立的可能性下降。

这题太特殊了，因为答案的assumption竟然是一个intermediate conclusion的assumption，跟最后的结论木有关系。。。。真牛。。。基本上不会特意注意到solely这题没法做。。。。

作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-4 08:56

alzn2765 发表于 2016-3-3 19:47
这题挺有意思，看了好久，估计考试我也做不出来。。。。。
这题的破题点居然是一个单词，真服了。。。。
ou ...

原谅我愚昧
B不是before beginning the application process 么取非就是大部分在申请之前并不熟那不是增强了representative的说法么
还是说这样理解因为B取非说明有其他原因就削弱了 Solely....

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-3-4 09:04

midsummer1026 发表于 2016-3-4 08:56
原谅我愚昧
B不是before beginning the application process 么取非就是大部分在申请之前并不熟那不是 ...

申请开始之前不认识－我们的私人关系不会影响申请（认知的时候申请已经开始了）
申请开始之前就认识－我们的私人关系可能影响申请（认识的时候申请还没开始）

别问了，自己好好想5遍就想明白了。

作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-4 09:23

alzn2765 发表于 2016-3-4 09:04
申请开始之前不认识－我们的私人关系不会影响申请（认知的时候申请已经开始了）
申请开始之前就认识－我 ...

Anyway, thank you very much

作者: chrislty 时间: 2018-6-4 15:57

midsummer1026 发表于 2016-3-4 09:23
Anyway, thank you very much

2楼答得什么鬼...
这题有点绕，逻辑链是说：10个被领养的小孩里，8个的领养家长都和领养机构的staff认识 -> 机构否认有偏见，因为这些家长都达标了。
换言之，机构的意思是“我们只根据匹配程度选择家长” 。
再来看B，B是说大部分匹配的家长，都在application之前就认识机构的staff。换言之，反正大家都认识，在这点上是公平的，大家拼得不是关系，而还是那些客观的匹配标准，所以机构并没有偏心。

作者: Victoriaxiao 时间: 2018-10-26 11:17

chrislty 发表于 2018-6-4 15:57
2楼答得什么鬼...
这题有点绕，逻辑链是说：10个被领养的小孩里，8个的领养家长都和领养机构的staff认识 ...

你说的太好了...

作者: 小岂儿 时间: 2018-12-13 04:37
差点被2楼给绕晕了。这里取非的点是more vs less，不是before vs after （题干已经说了“before initiating the adoption process”）。
也就是申请人里大多数本来就认识了，选来选去肯定最终人选还是大多数认识的，比方说100个申请人里，原来就认识80个人；最后10个顺利领养小孩的家长里，8个是认识的，前后比例一直维持80%。取非B的话，变成申请人里只有一小部分认识，最终人选缺是大部分认识的，那就有favoritism了。比方说100个申请人里，原来就认识20个人，最后10个顺利领养小孩的家长，8个是认识的，前后比例从20%上升到80%，明显就有偏心了。

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