ChaseDream
标题: og16 cr 84题 [打印本页]
作者: Cloris宋 时间: 2016-6-15 20:46
标题: og16 cr 84题
1. Proposed new safety rules for Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
B Few, if any, of the tourists who use Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself.
E The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include a large increase in the number of passengers per flight.
这道题我选的是B，正确答案是E
然后我是用的把b取反，就是用这个Beach City 机场的这些人他们的终点站是一个附近的地方而不是Beach City本身
难道不是意味着虽然飞机变少了，也不会使旅游业遭到打击，也不会reduce它的revenue，因为这些人本来也不是到Beach City旅游的
所以取反之后是削弱，就证明B应该是它的assumption啊
但是我不明白这道题为什么不选b。。。。e我知道它为什么对，但就是不明白为什么不选b
求大神指教！！！
作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-6-16 18:56
我自己的陋见。
楼主你看题干他告诉你这个B city 是靠游客的消费税来支撑机场的运作的。这里就有一个隐含的前提了，就是B city 是有游客的。所以选项B 是对题干中fact 的否定，所以是不对的。
作者: Cloris宋 时间: 2016-6-17 09:36
感觉还是有点不能理解，也有可能是只有特别少的游客，但是征税征的很高？
作者: 读你 时间: 2016-6-17 11:53
我的理解， e: 假设每架飞机的乘客数增加，那么减少飞机数量还是能增加游客带来的收入；b:假设游客到隔壁城市去，他们也可能到或不到Bcity，因此能或不能增加BCIty收入。题目假设每架飞机乘客量没增加，否定了一个确定的条件，若题目假设游客到隔壁城市去，否定的是一个不确定的假设，故b错e对。
作者: Cloris宋 时间: 2016-6-17 19:24
为什么游客到隔壁城市去，会有可能到或不到Bcity? 他们应该是不会到Bcity的啊，而是去了隔壁城市啊
作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-6-18 12:47
B说的是 不在Beach City消费那些人，而Beach city的旅游业要靠 在Beach City消费的那些人来支撑。B选项讨论的主体就是跟结论无关的范围。这是一个无关选项。
你对B取否是错误的。因为B只说了 很少人把beach city做中转 ，至于是不是很多人不把Beach city做中转，我们不知道，因为没说。
比如：
奥巴马这两天不会死
我说了奥巴马过两天就会死吗？没有。不知道。
作者: emmahiggins09 时间: 2016-6-19 03:35
大神还是嘴硬心软型，还是回来帮助我们了
给大神点个赞
作者: Cloris宋 时间: 2016-6-19 17:09
明白啦，谢谢大神！！
作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-6-19 18:30
为了申请攒人品。。。
作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-6-19 18:33
为了申请攒人品。。。
作者: patriciarong 时间: 2016-11-26 17:11
大神 C选项不懂
(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly
from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.
游客减少不会源自于那些不消费的游客减少，意思就是说游客减少是源自于那些消费的游客数量减少。这个assumption看着也挺对的。。。 怎么破
作者: 猪小王 时间: 2017-1-7 10:30
说说我的理解：
Premise: Proposed new safetyrules would lengthen the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport.
Intermediate Conclusion: In consequent, theairport would accommodate 10% fewer flights than current.
Premise: Operating budget dependson taxes
Premise: Most of the touristscome by plane.
Conclusion: new safety rules will reduce the revenue.
10%fewer flights à less tourists à less revenue
Figure out an assumption by myself: Touriststake the impacted 10% flights.
A.There are no periods of the day [during which] the interval is significantlygreater than the currently allowed minimum.
飞机起飞间隔不会比现在最小间隔高太多。
Negation: There are periods of the day during which … 某个时间段特别busy, takeoff time很高. 即便如此，tourists不一定会少，fewer flights=/= fewer tourists. Cannot harm the conclusion.
B.Few of tourists spend money in Beach City.
即使few of tourists spend money in Beach City, they can spend a lot of money and the total revenue will not be reduced.
即使many of tourists spend money in Beach City, they can spend a littlemoney and the total revenue may still be reduced.
Outliers. Few/many of tourists spend little -/-> the overall revenue will be reduced/increased.
C.The reduction in tourist numbers will notresult mainly from the reduction in the number of “little-spending” tourists.
Negation: The reduction will result majorly from thetourists who spend little.
Outlier: majorly =/=100%; one of the tourists may spend a lot of moneyand increase the total revenue. Cannot harm the conclusion.
D.Irrelevant. It strengthens the intermediate conclusion, but does not harm themain conclusion.
E. The response would not include a large increase inthe number of passengers per flight.
If the number of passengers per flight is increased, the total number oftourists will be increased. Harm the conclusion.
If the number of passengers per flight is reduced, the total number oftourists will be reduced. Support the conclusion.
So, the assumption stated in E is airtight with thepremises and the conclusion.
作者: 小陈冲鸭 时间: 2018-10-9 10:21
同意！
作者: 小陈冲鸭 时间: 2018-10-9 10:23
猪小王 发表于 2017-1-7 10:30
说说我的理解：
Premise: Proposed new safetyrules would lengthen the minimum time between takeoffs f ...
请问D为什么不对呢？如果有别的更好的方式来提高安全，就不用延迟飞机起飞间隔的时间了呀，难道论证不是建立在这之上的吗？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |