ChaseDream

标题: 求助，始终弄不明白的二道OG逻辑OG-79,OG-181 [打印本页]

作者: doris_tt 时间: 2003-9-2 17:08
标题: 求助，始终弄不明白的二道OG逻辑OG-79,OG-181
79. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can
hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that
the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that
is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted
explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Explian
Since the question elicits a reply, the question was presumably heard, but presumably not by
the part that is deaf. The explanation’s obvious weakness, therefore, is that it fails to indicate
why the part that replies would reply as if it were the part that is deaf. Choice A points to this
failure and is the best answer.
Choice B does not challenge the explanation itself, but the need for an explanation in the first
place. Choices C and D raise pertinent questions concerning the facts described, but do not
address the proffered explanation of those facts. Choice E points to a question to which the
attempted explanation gives rises, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

181.
Consumer health advocate: Your candy company adds caffeine to your chocolate candy bars
so that each one delivers a specified amount of caffeine. Since caffeine is highly addictive, this
indicates that you intend to keep your customers addicted.
Candy manufacturer: Our manufacturing process results in there being les caffeine in each
chocolate candy bar than in the unprocessed cacao beans from which the chocolate is made.
The candy manufacturer’s response is flawed as a refutation of the consumer health
advocate’s argument because it
(A) fails to address the issue of whether the level of caffeine in the candy bars sold by the
manufacture is enough to keep people addicted
(B) assumes without warrant that all unprocessed cacao beans contain a uniform amount of
caffeine
(C) does not specify exactly how caffeine is lost in the manufacturing process
(D) treats the consumer heal advocate’s argument as though it were about each candy bar
rather than about the manufacturer’s candy in general
(E) merely contradicts the consumer health advocate’s conclusion without giving any reason
to believe that the advocate’s reasoning is unsound

181.
In the dialogue, the candy manufacturer tries to rebut the claim that caffeine is added to
chocolate candy bars in order to keep consumers addicted. The rebuttal is that the caffeine
added is restoring to the product caffeine that was lost during manufacture. The question asks
you to identify why this rebuttal is inadequate.
Choice A is the best answer. The candy manufacturer’s rebuttal amounts to an admission that
the candy bars could be manufactured to contain less caffeine than they do. Therefore, the
crucial issue for assessing the health advocate’s account of the reason for adding the caffeine
is whether the amount of caffeine added is enough to make the candy addictive.
Although choices B and D both describe possible flaws in a response, neither of them is a
correct description of the response the manufacturer actually gives. With respect to choice C,
although the manufacturer does not specify how the caffeine is lost, the mechanism of
manufacture is not relevant to the issue that the health advocate raises. With respect to choice
E, the manufacturer does not give any reason for thinking the advocate’s reason is unsound.
But contrary to what this choice says, the manufacturer does not actually contradict the health
advocate’s conclusion.

作者: anchoret 时间: 2003-9-2 21:41
能问得具体些吗？究竟哪里不是很明白

作者: liu9903 时间: 2003-9-2 23:47
79，A：为什么被催眠的人不回答”是的“？因为文中说，被催眠的人身体的各个部分被分离了，那回答的部分怎么能知道别的部分听不到呢？所以，被催眠的人应该回答”听到了“因为，回答的部分只知道自己这个部分听到了，不知道别的分离的部分听不到才对。
181，消费者指出，生产的糖果中的咖啡因会使人上瘾，而厂商回答咖啡因的含量低。并没有说糖果中的咖啡因含量会不会使人上瘾。

不知道我的回答有没有用。

作者: doris_tt 时间: 2003-9-3 23:45
哦，谢谢， 181题看来我是一直理解错了：）谢谢。
关于79，我原来选的是D，一些大侠的解释也都品味过，可是还是糊里糊涂的：（

作者: Andrea625 时间: 2004-6-15 15:40
181厂商的辩解回避了问题的核心：是否会让人上瘾。答非所问，厂商的意图在于通过转移话题，误导你接受其观点：加的不多。

作者: 小鱼儿 时间: 2004-8-11 23:26
终于弄懂79题了，谢谢liu9903大侠！

作者: ercizhang 时间: 2005-1-15 17:31

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?

answer yes才是真正的dissociated,即这个回答的人只管自己是否听见,而Some theorists’ attempted explanation 中说是分开的人,却回答为no,仿佛是在替另一个回答,其实还是没有分开.这是Some theorists自相矛盾的地方.所以被A选项challenged

作者: victortrojan 时间: 2005-1-27 07:06

請教79題OG對E的解釋, (抱歉,算是閱讀了)

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

我不懂上句話中 gives rise 所指為何,請大家幫我解惑,感謝

作者: gaofengusa 时间: 2005-3-9 15:52

以下是引用victortrojan在2005-1-27 7:06:00的发言：

請教79題OG對E的解釋, (抱歉,算是閱讀了)

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

我不懂上句話中 gives rise 所指為何,請大家幫我解惑,感謝

上句话可以改写成

Choice E points to a question which the attemped explanation gives rise to(为固定用法，意义为“导致，引起”)

作者: gigiga0118 时间: 2005-7-5 19:38

繼續問

我想知道E

Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

我不懂E的意思

也不明白文中對E的解釋

Choice E points to a question to which the

attempted explanation gives rise, but does not challenge the adequacy of the explanation.

可以哪位nn替我說明一下呢???

作者: gigiga0118 时间: 2005-7-7 00:06
uph

作者: swlfx 时间: 2005-8-2 11:22

同问。

作者: kscorpion 时间: 2005-8-13 22:21

以下是引用ercizhang在2005-1-15 17:31:00的发言：

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?

其实回答yes，和no不重要。只要reply的部分总是给出同一个答案，那就说明他们不是seperate的，所以我觉得这道题目D也是对的

作者: advantage 时间: 2005-9-4 10:36

seperate part是指 deaf ＆和reply

按题目来讲,既然听觉(deaf)和回答是两部分.催眠师问什么其实受测人都是听不见的,而只负责回答,既然这样的话就有可能回答出:yes

所以要是都回答no的话,说明首先受测人能听见催眠师的问题,才做的回答,说明听到的＆回答的有联系,所以就可以weaken了啦

作者: pebbles 时间: 2005-10-8 05:30

79. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted
explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?

按黑体的理论,两部隔离,那作出的回答就和能否听见没关系,那回答就应该是随机的,为什么所有的人都回答No,而没有人回答Yes呢? 所以A质疑这种理论.

作者: RayBear 时间: 2005-12-25 20:02

我对选项D/E也不很清楚，现在试着把它们的意思翻译出来，还请多多指正呀。

D: 在所描述的情景下，为什么被催眠的人们都以同样的方式回答问题。即暗指为什么他们都回答“NO".

E: 为什么被催眠的人其本身被分离时，都被分离成THE deaf 何 the part that can hear 这两部分。

菜鸟上路，请多多指教。Thanx.

作者: WBS2007 时间: 2006-3-17 23:45

以下是引用pebbles在2005-10-8 5:30:00的发言：

按黑体的理论,两部隔离,那作出的回答就和能否听见没关系,那回答就应该是随机的,为什么所有的人都回答No,而没有人回答Yes呢? 所以A质疑这种理论.

这个解释有道理！

理论家们认为，被催眠者的自我意识被隔离开了，变deaf的那一部分意识和负责reply的那部分意识没有了联系。既然这样被催眠者为什么总是回答no，而不答yes呢？A就正确了。

作者: zwt8564 时间: 2006-7-30 19:41

同意楼上

作者: maydaythekid 时间: 2006-8-6 10:43

以下是引用liu9903在2003-9-2 23:47:00的发言：
79，A：为什么被催眠的人不回答”是的“？因为文中说，被催眠的人身体的各个部分被分离了，那回答的部分怎么能知道别的部分听不到呢？所以，被催眠的人应该回答”听到了“因为，回答的部分只知道自己这个部分听到了，不知道别的分离的部分听不到才对。
181，消费者指出，生产的糖果中的咖啡因会使人上瘾，而厂商回答咖啡因的含量低。并没有说糖果中的咖啡因含量会不会使人上瘾。

不知道我的回答有没有用。

恩，我觉得这个分析181踩到点上了！

consumer: add caffenine, so manufacture intend to keep consumers addicted.

manufacture: caffeine in candy bar is less than caffeine in unprocessed bean

FLAW：

manufacture跑题，没有答道“whether or not the bar would keep consumers addicted”，即A项的说法！

作者: lena_go 时间: 2007-5-1 14:37

我读不懂题目的意思，能翻译一下马

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