ChaseDream

标题: gwd 4-14 [打印本页]
作者: ebay    时间: 2005-9-6 18:44
标题: gwd 4-14
就是木匠建酒店的那道，为什么是D?
作者: beibeizhu    时间: 2005-9-6 21:57

Guidebook writer:  I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.  Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.



Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?




  1. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.

  2. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

  3. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

  4. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

  5. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.  

说1930年以前的木工做出来的酒店质量要比后来建的酒店要好,得出结论说是因为1930年前建造酒店的木匠比后来的更有技术,更努力.问削弱.


A拿酒店木工的质量和别的建筑的木工质量比，明显不相关;B说酒店能容纳多少人也不相关;C好象是个assumption;E说1930年后木匠做学徒的时间大大下降,有点support的感觉,当然不能说做学徒时间下降技术就一定要比以前差,也可以说不相关.


那么这样看来只有D说一个建筑最初的木工质量越好,越不可能被损坏,与现在guidebook writer看到的情况1930年以前的酒店木工质量好是一致的.好象只是在说质量好,并没有解释为什么质量好.


楼主选哪个啊,我也有疑问呢.


烦请路过的xdjm给个解释,谢谢了


作者: anchor_wan    时间: 2005-11-17 19:41

D ：The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished


也就是说保存时间越长的，质量就越好，即the quality of original carpentry in a building before 1930 is better than  that after 1930. 这样通过提供他因起到削弱的作用。


作者: babypigsxm    时间: 2006-3-1 23:48
实在不明白，D不是支持了argument吗
作者: wycg    时间: 2006-3-2 12:52
以下是引用babypigsxm在2006-3-1 23:48:00的发言：
实在不明白，D不是支持了argument吗



  这道题前人有过讨论, LZ可以翻一翻.


作者: MichelleZhang    时间: 2006-5-15 06:17

这道题应该是D没错. 因为30年之前"质量好的可以存留时间长,质量差的存留时间短",说明现在留下来的30年前的房子都是质量好的,那些30年前质量差的都已经损毁了.如果用以前质量好的房子跟后来普通质量的房子相比得出以前质量比后来质量好是不合理的,从而削弱.

作者: shzzhengfan    时间: 2006-5-16 19:32

Q14:

Guidebook writer:  I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.  Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

 

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

 

  1. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
  2. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
  3. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
  4. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
  5. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

D：质量好的房子保存的时间长

即现在保存下来的1930年前的房子都是1930年前质量最好的房子，那么拿1930年前质量最好的一批房子和1930年后的普通房子相比得出1930年前的房子整体好是不科学的，反对前提。

我第一次碰见通过反对前提削弱的题 !

 

作者: maggie+mz85    时间: 2007-4-12 00:23

C好像也有削弱的成分哦 不过没有D削弱的利害 但是答案的解释说是加强，所以就有些搞不懂了 我这样理解的 大家来看看不知道对不对

1930年以前可选择的材料的质量上的差别没有现在多，也就是说有可能现在用的材料比以前烂从而导致HOTEL没有以前好，给出了它因（是因为材料问题），不是工匠的SKILL的问题。属于削弱吧？？

作者: william0707    时间: 2008-4-8 13:01

这题太牛比了..

作者: szy733    时间: 2008-12-11 10:53
up
作者: maimai2009    时间: 2008-12-19 08:25
以下是引用shzzhengfan在2006-5-16 19:32:00的发言：

Q14:

Guidebook writer:  I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.  Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

  1. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
  2. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
  3. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
  4. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
  5. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

D：质量好的房子保存的时间长

即现在保存下来的1930年前的房子都是1930年前质量最好的房子，那么拿1930年前质量最好的一批房子和1930年后的普通房子相比得出1930年前的房子整体好是不科学的，反对前提。

我第一次碰见通过反对前提削弱的题 !

 

原句说better the quality of original carpentry in a building， 这里的carpentry指的是木工还是木材，看到好多人说质量好的房子。。。，我不明白这个质量好到底说什么质量好？如果是木材质量好那是他因消弱，如果是木工，那不是和原文说的一样的？

作者: winrain    时间: 2009-7-29 09:56
up
作者: OTSUKAAINAI    时间: 2009-7-29 10:29

原文主要围绕 木工的“努不努力” 和 酒店的质量好不好 谈

A说只说酒店不好 B就更不靠谱了 C说的是材料问题对象不对 D和E都说到了相应的对象，相比而言，D选项是向前推，也就是给出了旧酒店和新酒店可比的前提——旧酒店还存在，而E选项说工作时间和CARE\SKILL还是有出入的，相比D更沾边。

作者: xzbest    时间: 2009-10-1 23:00

D就是说，1930年以前的木工也是有好有坏，但是能留到今天的都是当初的好的木工，不好的都disuse或demolish了，所以不能以现在留下来的这些1930年以前的直接与1930年以后的做比较，削弱了原文的逻辑。

从别的地方搬来的，觉得很有理

作者: johnnytan131    时间: 2012-12-22 19:23
如此说的话，1930以后保留下来的，也应该都是质量好的房子，但是也比不过之前的，还是说明了作者的观点阿。。。这题的逻辑阿。。。



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3