ChaseDream

标题: GWD-28-17!看不懂了 [打印本页]

作者: 天之角 时间: 2005-9-21 14:49
标题: GWD-28-17!看不懂了
28-17: In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria’s roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks – those with three trailers – had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks. Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A: Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

B: No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.

C: Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.

D: In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.

E: In Partoria, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer trucks

我选了C，也觉得不太好，有一个汇总答案选了A，大家都选什么讨论一下。

作者: shiningshining 时间: 2005-9-21 15:08

A选项时说triple-trailer truck一般在lightly traveled sections行驶，所以事故率低。

而不是因为它的安全性能高，

也就是说如果增加triple-trailer truck，让其在正常路段形式的话，不一定能降低事故率。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-21 15:10:15编辑过]

作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-9-21 16:06

以下是引用shiningshining在2005-9-21 15:08:00的发言：

A选项时说triple-trailer truck一般在lightly traveled sections行驶，所以事故率低。

而不是因为它的安全性能高，

也就是说如果增加triple-trailer truck，让其在正常路段形式的话，不一定能降低事故率。

支持A.

简单的说，就是可能是其他原因造成了triple-trailer trucks更安全。所以，削弱结论。

作者: 天之角 时间: 2005-9-21 16:08
可是文章既没有说triple-trailer trucks 安全性高，也没有说以后就让triple-trailer trucks 在正常路段行驶啊。我觉得A倒有点加强的意思。要两个assumptions才能推出A，我觉得有点牵强。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-21 16:08:57编辑过]

作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-9-21 16:40

以下是引用天之角在2005-9-21 16:08:00的发言：
可是文章既没有说triple-trailer trucks 安全性高，也没有说以后就让triple-trailer trucks 在正常路段行驶啊。我觉得A倒有点加强的意思。要两个assumptions才能推出A，我觉得有点牵强。

The very largest trucks – those with three trailers – had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks.

作者: 天之角 时间: 2005-9-21 16:44
好像明白点了，不过还是觉得A更像加强。

作者: uibewsj 时间: 2006-11-23 12:54
题干：某车事故少，所以安全，大家都用吧~
削弱：该车用得少，而且都是在比较安全的路段 (当然事故少) - 他因

作者: 娜娜仁 时间: 2006-12-1 21:51
ding

作者: davidli8888 时间: 2006-12-2 17:34

My vote is A, after hard thinking. The premise is bigger truck is safer, compared with the smaller one. The assumption is that they both are comparable, ie they run on the same conditions. Choice A, if true, shows that bigger truck runs on a favorable condition quite different from the smaller one, a condition accounting for the difference in the fatalities.

Again it demonstrates how important it is to catch hold on the hidden assumption to crack on tough CR questions.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-12-3 9:04:54编辑过]

作者: gonghao 时间: 2006-12-2 22:27
vote for A

作者: hedge 时间: 2006-12-9 13:47
????????????????????

作者: hedge 时间: 2006-12-9 13:58

A中artorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

trucking companies 卡车公司让三节车只在路况好的告诉公路行驶,并不能代表整个Partorian 地区所有的三节卡车都如此. 故A选项以偏概全，错！

支持E,这其实是一道数学题。就像前面有一题雨量的CR

按照题设：The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks.

而如果E的话，假设运同样一批货物，一节卡车运的次数为3，那么三节车运的次数肯定多于1次。想想如果某批货动用3量一节卡车，那3节车的哥们就得跑两次。这样根据less than a third of the accident rate ，这还指不定这个替代方法是好的。所以E削弱

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-12-9 14:11:54编辑过]

作者: lxzjojo 时间: 2006-12-13 14:18
up

作者: adpang 时间: 2006-12-13 15:10

能说说选C的理由吗？

作者: huashengke 时间: 2006-12-13 16:38
I choose A,because A provide the other reason why triple-trailer trucks have lowest fatalities.

作者: qxlsh 时间: 2007-2-16 21:59

以下是引用hedge在2006-12-9 13:58:00的发言：

A中artorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

trucking companies 卡车公司让三节车只在路况好的告诉公路行驶,并不能代表整个Partorian 地区所有的三节卡车都如此. 故A选项以偏概全，错！

支持E,这其实是一道数学题。就像前面有一题雨量的CR

按照题设：The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks.

难怪是做基金的，hedge比较喜欢用数学来算

呵呵，看了hedge很多回复（签名档很有特点容易记住），感觉hedge的选项和思路都很怪异啊；不太符合ETS的思路呢

作者: 阿土莎莎 时间: 2007-12-7 13:04

作者: sch 时间: 2007-12-18 02:26
以下是引用hedge在2006-12-9 13:58:00的发言：

A中artorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

trucking companies 卡车公司让三节车只在路况好的告诉公路行驶,并不能代表整个Partorian 地区所有的三节卡车都如此. 故A选项以偏概全，错！

支持E,这其实是一道数学题。就像前面有一题雨量的CR

按照题设：The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks.

***********************

E是错的.首先payload不在本题讨论范围.

您举的这个例子我也想过,但是就这个例子本身,数学推导上也是错误的.

我们假设单节卡车payload是3吨, single=3

3节卡车的payload是4吨,triple=4

如果有8吨货物:single的要跑3次,triple是2次, triple次数要少.

如果5吨,6吨货:大家都是2次

如果9吨货物:single跑3次,triple的也是3次

...........

反正无论怎么算,3拖卡车跑的次数都是小于等于单拖卡车的.所以无法削弱.

其实,你这种考虑方向本身就错了.无意中引入了一个无关的概念,就是总的货物量------这是个不确定的数字.

作者: happycg 时间: 2008-7-8 10:19
dddddddddddd

作者: sumerlaw 时间: 2009-4-2 22:36
a

作者: xiaoniuren 时间: 2009-7-20 00:00
DD

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