ChaseDream
标题: 救救孩纸吧！！！有逻辑大佬给解释一下吗 [打印本页]
作者: iamvv 时间: 2021-5-19 21:40
标题: 救救孩纸吧！！！有逻辑大佬给解释一下吗
原题
（In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. ）Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators, that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly,（ in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.）
A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.
B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.
E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.
我的中文理解是：两个前提（1在撞车后伤了whiplash 有得赔偿的国家，whiplash injuries 的报告率是没有赔偿的国家的两倍；2这些whiplash injuries 没办法检查到是真的还是假的），然后一些评论家就以此推测在这些报告率高的国家，有一半的报告都是假的；但是这些评论是错的，因为在报告率低的国家，很多人都因为没有赔偿而懒得报告
怎么也想不通最后这句怎么推出评论家的话就是错的了？？？
作者: Leilanico 时间: 2021-5-20 21:53
这道题我会选D，以下是我的理解：
（In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. ）-这是观察到的一个事实 Fact，也有可能是个premise，继续往下看：
Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. -作者让步接受观点：现实是没有客观测试证明W存在，所以虚假的Whiplash损伤报告不能容易地被确认。
Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators, that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious.
-然而，这些事实不能阻止某些评论家得出以下结论：在那些W损伤报告频率很高的国家，有一半的报告都是虚假的。这是评论家的conclusion。
Clearly,（ in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.）
-很明显，汽车保险中不含盖W损伤的赔偿金的国家，人们通常没有动力去报告实际遭受的W的损害。（也就是 non insur $ W -> pl less W reports） 这是premise。
第一个黑脸句是fact，第二个黑脸句是premise。
我们需要找到选项中符合F+P的组合。
A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim. （第二句不是conclusion而是premise，A选项去掉）
B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion. （第一句是个事实，作者没有支持或反对这个fact，第二个黑脸句也不是C，B选项去掉）
C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. （ 第二个黑脸句不是conclusion，去掉C）
D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.（第一个黑脸句是一个finding，也确实影响到接下来讨论的问题；第二个黑脸句是评论家的观点的前提，目的是反对这个finding带来的一些反应。） F+P组合
E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.
答案是什么？
作者: 长丝弓 时间: 2021-5-20 22:08
以下讨论供参考：
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-575898-1-1.html
作者: iamvv 时间: 2021-5-22 10:14
D！感谢解答！！我后来的理解是评论家认为have pay国家如果比non pay国家doubled的话，那应该有一半是假的，相当于把non pay国家当成基准，而没有考虑这些国家没上报的report，所以结论是建立在这个错误理解的基础上的？所以错了？
by the way,这个F+P组合是一个策略做法吗？还想问问你怎么学的cr，我看ron神的课实在好难看懂（本来逻辑就很菜），理解题目都要老半天，想答案又要老半天（太苦逼了）我一般看题很想把题目具体化，然后完全弄懂这个逻辑链，但是总感觉题目绕的圈实在太多，思维绝对没有ron那么快，在考虑要不要找别的渠道学cr。。。。。
作者: iamvv 时间: 2021-5-22 10:17
Mark一下！
作者: Leilanico 时间: 2021-5-23 05:28
我是看曼哈顿的逻辑分册学到的，目前觉得里面介绍的方法很适合我，你也可以试试。它里面告诉你怎么拆分段落结构，把骨架找到，就能很快的删掉错误答案。比如说我上面做的分析，是要找Fact+Premise的组合，所以只要是选项里说到某个黑脸句是conclusion，那绝对淘汰，这样就能省很多时间，快狠准的定位。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |