ChaseDream

标题: 求NN们解释一道CR题--700-800 level上的,各种网站上的解释都看了还是不懂啊 [打印本页]

作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-17 20:08
标题: 求NN们解释一道CR题--700-800 level上的,各种网站上的解释都看了还是不懂啊
弄了好半天还是不知道问题在哪里,希望有好心人能帮忙解答一下,题目如下:

The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A - For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.

B -While the government’s calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.

C- Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.

D - Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.

E - The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

答案是C,我选的E,当时是在C和E之间徘徊,但是想了想C选项在说private sector的调查,但是调查未必可靠啊,而E选项进一步说明了政府的计算方法有问题,所以需要alter,加强了“ government's calculation methods must be altered”,我的逻辑有啥问题呢?望大家指点,谢谢了。。。
作者: joii    时间: 2018-10-17 20:28
个人看法,原文里说的是income,也就是衡量一个人是否是穷人就看他的income,结论大致是说政府现在的计算方式没有把所有收入包括进去

但E选项里只说了有assets,没有说有assets就会有额外收入,emmm...这种好像挺多的,看着有道理但是其实是自己脑补的
作者: fuckoffand    时间: 2018-10-17 23:17
问题的目的是in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty --而选项e只是提供了另外一个例子来表示gov的算法算进去了一部分人,与原文当中的retiree的效果其实是重复的

而c选项是表示了gov的这种算法的结果是真的错了,所以选c
作者: FailAgain    时间: 2018-10-18 10:26
我的逻辑用的是helr毕老师的方法,在这道题里的应用应该就是这样
因:retirees who earn lots of money were still classified as "poverty"
果:yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure
因果推理,并且这题题干的意思就是支持这个结论
所以正确答案无非就是从两种角度出发
CQ1:因果联系问题(加强因果联系,比如C选项的给出另一个证明的例子)
CQ2:干扰因素(在加强的角度就是排除干扰因素,比如说排除这种人只是很小很小部分,可以被忽略,也就是A选项,如果这题是削弱的话,最好的答案就是他)
所以本题答案里快速过一遍,符合这个因果推理CQ1的只有C选项
E选项的问题在于他是说算法错误的算上了某一部分人,而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以是不对的,算是比较迷惑的out of scope
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 13:36
FailAgain 发表于 2018-10-18 10:26
我的逻辑用的是helr毕老师的方法,在这道题里的应用应该就是这样
因:retirees who earn lots of money wer ...

感谢解答!!不过我还是有点问题,“而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以是不对的”,可是文章讲的不是漏算了一部分人,而是多算了一部分人。文章说计算方法上没有算上“capital gains,non-cash government benefits”,所以把那些有capital gains from an extensive portfolil的老年人也算成了poverty,就是说计算poverty的时候多算了一些人进去啰,而E选项也是说把那些有substantial assets的人也算进去了,跟文章就是一个意思了,咋就不是加强咧?
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 13:40
joii 发表于 2018-10-17 20:28
个人看法,原文里说的是income,也就是衡量一个人是否是穷人就看他的income,结论大致是说政府现在的计算方 ...

感谢解答,我还是很晕啊,可能我在加强题的思路上出了偏差吧,所以这类题型的正确率很低啊
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 13:44
fuckoffand 发表于 2018-10-17 23:17
问题的目的是in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty --而选项e只是提供了另外一个例子 ...

感谢解答!!但是为啥重复强调就不是加强原文了呢?强调文章的premise不就是更进一步支持了文章吗?
作者: fuckoffand    时间: 2018-10-18 13:52
dreamtime666 发表于 2018-10-18 13:44
感谢解答!!但是为啥重复强调就不是加强原文了呢?强调文章的premise不就是更进一步支持了文章吗? ...

加强削弱题一般都不会重复原文噢,重复原文的话就丧失目的了不是?因为重复原文只不过是起到了repeat的作用,而非strengthen/weaken the assumption的作用。
作者: spicytaco    时间: 2018-10-18 14:52
官方解释:

The conclusion of the argument is that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty. To support this position, the author first explains how the government’s method works and then introduces a hypothetical example that would return a "false positive" - that is, a person who has a large income, yet is classified by the government as living in poverty. One example, however, is generally not enough to invalidate an entire method; no method is perfect and there are always a few results that are not consistent with the overall conclusion. In order to validate, or strengthen, the conclusion, we need to show that the government’s method is fundamentally inferior to some alternative that would produce more valid results.

(A) This choice weakens the argument by minimizing the importance of the author's evidence (the hypothetical retiree with capital gains). According to this choice, the use of cash income to designate poverty levels is a very sound method because it provides valid results for more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty.

(B) This choice shows that the government’s method provided a wide range of results for the poverty rate over a certain period of time, but it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It tells us nothing about whether the method provides relevant statistics in any given year.

(C) CORRECT. If this statement is true, then the government’s calculation method seems to overstate the number of people living in poverty, while the various private sector studies generally agree with each other that the number of people is lower. Thus, the methods used in the private sector are likely to be more valid than the government’s method, lending credence to the author's contention that the government’s method should change.

(D) Although this choice provides an example of people who might agree with the conclusion (several prominent economists), this choice provides no evidence that the alternate method they endorse would provide more relevant statistics than the government’s method.

(E) This choice adds another hypothetical example of how the current method could include someone in the poverty count who does not actually live in poverty. It does not, however, address whether there are other calculation methods that are more accurate than the government’s method.
作者: FailAgain    时间: 2018-10-18 17:08
dreamtime666 发表于 2018-10-18 13:36
感谢解答!!不过我还是有点问题,“而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以 ...

感谢9楼发的官方解释,我发现自己先前的理解有偏差
这题想要推理果其实是在题干中,conclusion should be "the government's calculation methods must be altered"
而整个Argument没有给出这个conclusion的原因,你可以把他看做一个填空题加入到原文的最后面可能会好理解一些 “the government's calculation methods must be altered,since _____”
然后我们重新看待E,发现他只是说了算法类似于原文的一个错误,而在原文我们知道这种错误只能得到“not a fool-proof measure”这个果。所以官方解释说“It does not, however, address ...”
然而C,他给出了must be altered的因,就是外面有更好的算法可供altered
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 18:25
fuckoffand 发表于 2018-10-18 13:52
加强削弱题一般都不会重复原文噢,重复原文的话就丧失目的了不是?因为重复原文只不过是起到了repeat的作 ...

是的,我现在理解了,重复只是repeat,不是加强,之前想法有点钻牛角尖了。。非常感谢!!!
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 19:23
LZ又遇到了700-800上的另一个类似的加强题,如下:

Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
A.Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
B.There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
C.Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as “standard.”
D.There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
E.Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.

正确选项是C,不是B。 B选项也是对文章内容的一种重复,文章说了微波炉的使用会造成严重的伤害,B选项把具体伤害又说了一下。而官方解释说这种重复的现象是provide emotional support, 而不是logical support

看到这里,对加强题我是不是可以有以下总结呢:

1.重复文章内容只起到repeat的作用,起不到加强的作用
2.正确选项一般提供了新信息,来实现逻辑上的完整,而不是重复强调文中的premise,因为这样做只提供了emotional support,没有提供logical support
3.一定要看清楚题目要你加强的是什么,而不是只看文章的结论----比如说此贴最开始的那个题目,单看文章结论是“cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's income”,但是题目说让你加强“the government's calculation method must be altered~~”, 如果选择E选项也算是对文章中的结论的加强,而不是对题目上的contention来加强的吧

如有问题,欢迎指正~~
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-18 20:25
FailAgain 发表于 2018-10-18 17:08
感谢9楼发的官方解释,我发现自己先前的理解有偏差
这题想要推理果其实是在题干中,conclusion should be ...

我又有点把自己绕进去了,你说的意思我可以这样理解哈,如果把C选项跟要加强的内容放在一起就是这样的:因为大多数由私营部门进行的研究表明,美国真正生活在贫困中的人数少于政府的计算的人数,所以为了计算出真正的贫困人数,政府的计算方法应该改变一下;如果把E选项跟要加强的内容放在一起就是这样的:因为政府的计算方法错误地计算了那些没有收入但有大量资产可供生活的人,所以为了计算出真正的贫困人数,政府的计算方法应该改变一下,但文章中已经出现过这个原因所表达的意思了,再说一遍也起不到什么作用;抛开其他的内容,我不能理解的一点是为什么正确答案里一定要有另外一种更可靠的方法出现,政府的计算方法有问题它就要去改变啊,就算没有其他更好的方法,它也要想着怎么调整它现在的方法吧,所以如果有一个选项说了政府必须要改变的原因,但是没有说另外一种方法,这个是不是也可以考虑为正确选项呢?
作者: FailAgain    时间: 2018-10-18 23:08
dreamtime666 发表于 2018-10-18 20:25
我又有点把自己绕进去了,你说的意思我可以这样理解哈,如果把C选项跟要加强的内容放在一起就是这样的: ...

“我不能理解的一点是为什么正确答案里一定要有另外一种更可靠的方法出现”
并不是说一定要有另一种更可靠的方法,逻辑题是对比比出来的,所以当咱们排除到了C和E的时候,C更符合要表达的意思 - must be altered,然后就选它,不再去考虑更多的可能性了,因为逻辑的可能性是无限的,咱们是想不完所有可能性的,所以就没必要去再多费心思去考量有没有更好的可能

“因为政府的计算方法错误地计算了那些没有收入但有大量资产可供生活的人,所以为了计算出真正的贫困人数,政府的计算方法应该改变一下”
其中“所以为了计算出真正的贫困人数”,这个是你自己的assumption吧?逻辑题最好不要做任何自己的assumption哈
所以我觉得句子应该翻译成这样“因为政府的计算方法错误地计算了那些没有收入但有大量资产可供生活的人,所以政府的计算方法必须被改变”
其实如果用英文应该好理解一点,如果只是单纯一些的问题,这种算法本身没有大问题的话,是不是用must be improved更符合呢?既然题目用了must be altered这么极端的表达,表示整个算法必须被改掉,替换掉。那么“外面有更好的不一样的算法”的原因,看起来就会比“算法有某些错误”更符合must be altered的结论呢?
作者: dreamtime666    时间: 2018-10-19 08:36
FailAgain 发表于 2018-10-18 23:08
“我不能理解的一点是为什么正确答案里一定要有另外一种更可靠的方法出现”
并不是说一定要有另一种更可靠 ...

你讲的很好啊,我现在理解了,非常非常感谢~~
作者: Attano    时间: 2018-10-19 15:21
我的想法: 要证明一个衡量的制度有问题,就应该证明它不能衡量真实情况(因为衡量标准设置的问题,衡量过程的偏差问题都会导向这个结果),ABD项比较明显,在此不提。
看CE两项给出的制度问题的理由:
C项表示:大多数私人统计公司表示政府数据不正确。(“大多数”使此结论具有说服力)那么政府的结果和市场上绝大多数公司都不一致,因此政府数据是受到质疑的, in other words,准确性是可疑的。
E项表示:对于对特定条件的人来说,它不能反映真实情况。但,第一,这个情况在passage中已经提到过,它就不能作为supplement,从而不能进一步validate the argument; 其次,仅仅给出一种特定情况,而不说这样的情况对问题结果的强度影响有多大,(毕竟有财产可啃的人只在少数,题目也没有给出它数量的具体信息,我们不能确定它的影响到底有多大),那么就存在模糊的情况,显然,一个模糊的证据也是不能validate the argument的。

作者: asiahec    时间: 2018-11-14 19:15
请问大家都是怎么利用700-800这套题的呢,之前语文的每个部分都做了一点,但是觉得和考试思路差很多,后来都不敢做了,求大家指教!谢谢!!
作者: 招拆猫猫拳    时间: 2018-11-15 17:29
这题根据dustin的说法
ce其实两个的方向都对 这属于gmat难题中常出现的程度问题
c的程度明显比e要大 要深 这就是c优于e的原因 都是相对的答案 如果这题没有c在e也可以是对的
作者: HoganTong    时间: 2019-1-9 11:59
FailAgain 发表于 2018-10-18 10:26
我的逻辑用的是helr毕老师的方法,在这道题里的应用应该就是这样
因:retirees who earn lots of money wer ...

更正一下,helr的因果推理中,只有加强/削弱结论这一种方向,排除或引入他因不能加强或减弱因果推理(而是加强或减弱果因推理),所以不选E




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