ChaseDream
标题: manhattan CAT逻辑题求解 [打印本页]
作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-29 13:01
标题: manhattan CAT逻辑题求解
Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.
Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.
Lucy’s argument relies on the assumption that ______.
| | normal levels of antipsychotic drug use are rarely exceeded. |
| | the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication is always higher than the percentage of children on such medication. |
| | the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults. |
| | Antoine is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents. |
| | a rapid increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs generates more fear of random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such medications. |
完全get不到点
作者: yanqingzhu 时间: 2016-3-31 00:30
11 adults per 1,000 is normal
然而在 the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years 以后 还是只有6.6 per children， 这种情况下，他的意思就是 adults should和 children 一样。
作者: elusive 时间: 2016-3-31 04:54
这个题没说结论。
题目大致在说：
虽然antoine说孩子今年吃药率比上一年增长了73%，但是Lucy说大人吃药的比率千分之11是正常的，所以孩子吃药率千分之6.6也是正常的。
因：大人吃药率千分之11是正常的
果：孩子吃药率千分之6.6也是正常的
应该是类比推理，大人吃药比率比小孩吃药比率。因为是assumption,等于strengthen,所以答案要说明二者的相同点。
A：在说药物被服用的情况，没有说相同点。
B：在重复前提，没有说相同点。
C：说了二者相似之处增强了可比性。这样才说明大人小孩有可比性。假设是different，那么说明没有可比性，Lucy的话也就是没有依据，那么他就不能说孩子的千分之6.6是安全的。
D：分析因果发现这道题里面安东尼说的话没有用，也不能参与对比。
E：造成什么社会影响和对比无关。
感觉这道题很诡异的地方在于第一个人说的话没用
作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-31 19:09
可是在last year和 last four years 出现这种差距是有可能的
作者: midsummer1026 时间: 2016-3-31 19:15
谢谢解答～
作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-4-4 17:36
我不是很同意你说这里没有结论，我们一起讨论一下啊
在你的中文翻译里已经写出了：所以孩子吃药千分之6.6 也是正常的。我觉的这个就是LUCY 的结论。
这题问的lucy 的assumption, 答案的话去找选项取非后，不支持lucy 的结论的就是对的
作者: elusive 时间: 2016-4-5 02:33
我的意思是原文没有明确的结论。。
现在想了想大概是这样：
因：大人正常
assumption
果：孩子正常
要想 因+assumption=果，只能是大人和孩子是一样的，大概也就是C的意思了
就像你说的，假设大人和孩子不一样，因+assumption≠果，变成了削弱。
作者: elusive 时间: 2016-4-5 07:13
我又找了一个很类似的题
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-4-5 07:54
我想答案是B，因为B取非后就是：unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of population.
我理解的就是失业率在某个地区人群里特别高，那么如果是这样的话，随便50个人里有可能1个以上的失业者的理论就是不能成立的，所以削弱了S的argument.
其实还有一个方法，这道题其实也是道paradox题，因为R和S给出的两个facts 是incompatible. 遇到paradox 的话也可以用why one fact is true even though another one is true as well 来解题。
这样的话题目就简化成为啥R和S都对呢？原因就是B
作者: 尖頭人殺G 时间: 2021-10-29 14:19
同意！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |
