ChaseDream

标题: !!请教---------一个非常奇怪的逻辑题!!! [打印本页]

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-1 10:58
标题: !!请教---------一个非常奇怪的逻辑题!!!

这题我怎么也不明白为什么答案是C (新东方给的答案) 请各位帮忙分析:

我认为应该选E

In the course of her reseraches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnizler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnizler's arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnizler asserting that he has been pedding off and on for 20 years.

The facts above best support which of the following conclusions?

A)Schnizler started peddling around 1719

B)Schnizler was arrested repeatedly for peddling

C) The undated document was written before 1765

D) The arrest record was written after the undated document

E) The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnizler peddled than does the undated document

作者: yangxiaogang 时间: 2005-10-1 11:12
我认为应该选a.

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-1 11:34

Thank y Yang GG:

if you think a is right then I would assume that your assumption must build on the fact that Schizer peddled before he got caught by police on May 3 1739, however, since Schizer's own statement does not have a date, and how can we know when he made the statement, and further more, whether his statement is true??

this is just my thought!

作者: yangxiaogang 时间: 2005-10-1 11:44

根据题目：条件1：第一份文件记录了S在1739年被捕；条件2：第二份文件记录了S已进行了20年的行商，所以我觉得比较容易推出A。请各位大虾指点

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-1 11:52

But conditon 2 is S's own statement about peddling 20 years, this record not from a 3rd party but from S himself,how can you exclude the chance that S could peddled after he got arrested by police?

作者: yangxiaogang 时间: 2005-10-1 11:55
我觉得5各选项中只有a相对最合理，

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-1 11:59

then can y help me understand why E is not correct?

Police record: a 3rd party evidence that is more objective

S'own statement: a more subjective evidence

So the conclusion of E seems all right? doesn't it?

作者: boborich 时间: 2005-10-1 21:55

注意一下statement，它也是客观的，有第三方发表的。而且一个答案有多种解释的话，至少这个解释是有问题的。

大家注意一下pedding off and on ，说明他停过经商，而且是先做，再听，然后再接着干了20年。

是不是这个意思啊？

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-2 00:42

somehow I think we might unconciously complicate this question,we might put lots of external logic into this, now suppose we knew nothing but above passage

If A is correct then D must right, so A and D must not the answer

that leaves only C and E, between C and E, I think E is more reasonable

I am open to discussion!

作者: 天使与海豚 时间: 2005-10-2 21:17

has been pedding off and on for 20 years-->到现在为止,她已经pedding 20年了

One, dated May 3, 1739, -->她被arrest

两种情况:

I.1739 (倒霉的这年)这年是在她号称的pedding的这20年里的,

最倒霉的情况,一开始pedding就被arrest,那这个她号称的年月日就是: 1739+20=1759

她就是在号称的那年被arrest的,那就是1739年

所以这个号称的范围在 1739--1759年

C) The undated document was written before 1765

C是充分条件哦

II.1739 (倒霉的这年)不是在那个20年里面,那一定是1739年的这个点早于那20年(就是在她说完我已经pedding了20年,她继续pedding的时候才arrest的)

答案C说的么错啊.

说的有点复杂了

但是画个时间轴.就十分的清楚了

作者: hl2006 时间: 2005-10-3 00:29

Lavener JJ 讲的十分的清晰,不用画 time line 了,我想我confuse 的原因是一开始我就assume S'的statement 有假的可能,so i surely can not have a clear timeline,

not that I think of it, presupposition sometime, is a danger's thing.

Thank y Lavener JJ

作者: 天使与海豚 时间: 2005-10-3 13:58

呵呵...

不客气

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