ChaseDream

标题: 请教OG17-635！！！ [打印本页]

作者: CoralUT 时间: 2018-8-14 18:37
标题: 请教OG17-635！！！
635. Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or
pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in
Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of
allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten
years. Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater
quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren
were ten years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has
not decreased over the past ten years.
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other
children to have allergies to other substances.
C. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be
sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and
apartment buildings in Renston.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of
Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.
有没有哪位大神能帮忙解释一下A选项的问题在哪里啊，看OG解释完全没懂。

作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2018-8-14 23:14
看来大家的脑回路都不太一样哈哈
个人认为这个题目应该是一个果因推论的题目
背景信息是：某种化学物质会导致学生们过敏
果：过去十年被送去校医院的学生在增多
因：要么是孩子们更敏感了；要么是这个物质更多了
把因果倒过来，孩子们变得更敏感了/这种化学物质变得更多了→更多的过敏学生被送到了校医院
在学生过敏和被送到医院之间有一个gap就是被送到校医院的可能性这个gap跟校医院的医生有多少并没有关系

作者: cycgundam 时间: 2018-8-14 23:27
这道题的关键字抓取比较重要。

背景 - 小学用的一些清洁剂中的化学物质能对小孩造成过敏反应。
前提 - 小学的【护士】报告说近十年来，被送过来治疗过敏反应的小学生比率大幅上升。

结论 - 要么现在的小学生相比十年前更容易有过敏反应，要么就是清洁剂中的化学成分大幅增加。

思路 - 整篇的逻辑的断定是以护士的理解为基准。所以抓住这一点就很容易看到这个逻辑的问题和假设。

A）学校护士的雇佣数量与逻辑无关。本题提到和护士有关的关键点在于报告，而不是护士的数量。
B）小学生是否对其他物质过敏与本逻辑无关。本题的判定是以清洁剂中的化学物质造成的过敏为基准。被送去看护士的原因也是清洁剂化学物质造成的过敏。
C）正确答案。本题如果以护士的主观理解为基准并总结一个客观结论，那最大的一个假设就是这个护士的主观理解的准确程度。C很好的提到了这一点。如果十年前和现在小学生因过敏而送去给护士看的频率一致，则本题结论不成立，因为结论成立的前提就是护士报告的频率上升。所以使本题结论成立，本题的必要假设就是现在有过敏反应的学生，相比十年前，不会更有可能送去给护士看。如果现在的学生一旦有这个过敏就更有可能送给护士去看，那护士感受到的只是来就诊人数的上升，而不是客观上真正得病的人上升。相同的逻辑有 - 以前的人看不起病，所以多半选择不看病；而现在的人富了，所以有病了就去看。故而现在的医生不能下结论就说现在的人更容易生病，事实就是以前的人得病而不看病而已。
D）很迷惑的答案。学生当然也可能因为家里的清洁剂而过敏。但这个选项和本题的结论没有关联。本题的结论并没有考虑小孩是在哪里过敏，而是小孩相比过去是否更容易过敏或者清洁剂中过敏成分是否增加。如果护士的结论是：Clearly, we need to tell the school to switch the cleaner product to other brands that don't have such chemical substance。那这个选项就很容易正确。
E）小学生相比本地人口比和本题无关。

作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2018-8-14 23:32

cycgundam 发表于 2018-8-14 23:27
这道题的关键字抓取比较重要。

背景 - 小学用的一些清洁剂中的化学物质能对小孩造成过敏反应。

同意！

作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2018-8-14 23:33

cycgundam 发表于 2018-8-14 23:27
这道题的关键字抓取比较重要。

背景 - 小学用的一些清洁剂中的化学物质能对小孩造成过敏反应。

求侠客解惑一下这个题目https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1327095-1-1.html

作者: swwmms_jy 时间: 2018-8-15 10:55
如果题干里说的是每个护士的工作量大了，那么答案可以选A；可题目说的是nurses, 所以A排除

作者: CoralUT 时间: 2018-8-17 10:56

蟹黄味蚕豆发表于 2018-8-14 23:14
看来大家的脑回路都不太一样哈哈
个人认为这个题目应该是一个果因推论的题目
背景信息是：某种化学物质会 ...

这个思路很赞！一下子就清楚了。

作者: CoralUT 时间: 2018-8-17 11:06

cycgundam 发表于 2018-8-14 23:27
这道题的关键字抓取比较重要。

背景 - 小学用的一些清洁剂中的化学物质能对小孩造成过敏反应。

感谢大神解答，想额外问一个问题对于ABD的选项，我觉得都可以看作是排除他因导致结论成立，可是这三个选项经过分析之后都可以算作是无关选项，想请教，如何对有关无关进行判断呢？

作者: Airmare 时间: 2018-12-14 20:25
路过，贴一下我的分析：

A) The number of school nurses employed by Renston's elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years. 和nurse的数量无关，只和报告内容相关
B) Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances. 只谈及chemical allergy reaction 和别的物质无关
C) Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago. ==！发生过敏反应的孩子没有比以前更容易被送到医院；排除了这个原因构成有效前提Assumption
D) The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston. 地点无关，不影响【quality】和【sensetive】构成原因
E) Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston's population now than they did ten years ago. 谈论的是过敏的孩子/全部孩子的【比例】上升，而不是孩子/R的【比例】

Try to deny C, we get "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago." If so, this could have caused most of the reported increase by nurses, and the original argument that “either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago" would fall apart. So, C is an assumption, and the best answer。- Assumption题目的选项取非逻辑：取非后，原文的结论不成立，则说明选项是基本的条件

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