ChaseDream

标题: 逻辑问题-OG 2019 小孩子使用打火机 [打印本页]

作者: 5566789 时间: 2020-3-7 21:44
标题: 逻辑问题-OG 2019 小孩子使用打火机
请教下大家，下面这道题该用因果分析还是措施目的分析呢？
Which of the following, if true , most logically completes the argument below?
Manufacturers arenow required to make all cigarette lighters child-resistant by equipping them with safety levers.
Butthis change is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the number of fires caused by children playing with
lighters, because children given the opportunity can figure out howto workthe safety levers and _ _ .
A. the addition of the safety levers has made lighters more expensive than they were before the requirment was institued.
B.adults are more likely to leave child-resistant lighters than non-child-resistant lighters in places that are accessible to children.

有位大神是这么写的
1.
For safety requirements, manufactures now produce the lighters with safe levers on them.
Conclusion:
The safety situation will not change.
Reasons:
1. Children still can learn how to make the levers out.
2. Because the parents consider it safe, the lighters will be put in the places within the catch of children.
但我个人理解，是措施目的啊，
措施：make all cigarette lighters child-resistant by equipping them with safety levers
目的：result in a significant reduction in the number of fires caused by children
同时A选项我理解如果安装设备后成本上升，大家会倾向于买便宜的，儿童会更容易接触到，为什么A不可以呢?

请大神们帮助解答下吧，逻辑实在是没搞懂,多谢多谢

(A) the addition of the safety levers has made lighters more expensive than they were before the

作者: 5566789 时间: 2020-3-7 21:45
自己先顶下，还请大神们多多帮助，多谢！

作者: 5566789 时间: 2020-3-8 09:19
有没有小伙伴帮帮我啊

作者: Carol凡凡 时间: 2020-3-10 19:38
为啥这种新型打火机不能减少儿童误用导致的火灾？
因为：1）儿童搞得定这种保护装置 +2）大人还更倾向把这种新型打火机而不是老式打火机放在儿童旁边→所以：会导致火灾。
楼主这个A拐的弯有点多了呢

作者: wu0h961738 时间: 2020-3-14 18:24
看到Ａ選項的第一個想法就是經濟學所說的吉分商品，為什麼變貴我就不買？變貴讓我覺得設計更安全，反而我更會買．
相對Ｂ的邏輯結構就比較完善，前面提到小孩學會怎麼玩火機，然後後面接父母給小孩這個機會玩火機－》提升玩火機的危險．

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