标题: 请教LSAT-Set12-SecIV-Q24 [打印本页] 作者: jq_jou 时间: 2003-9-5 07:59 标题: 请教LSAT-Set12-SecIV-Q24 24. Mainstream economic theory holds that manufacturers. in deciding what kinds of products to manufacture and what form those products should have, simply respond to the needs and desires of consumers. However, most major manufacturers manipulate and even create consumer demand. as anyone who watches television knows. Since even mainstream economic theorists watch television, their motive in advancing this theory must be something other than disinterested concern for scientific truth.
The claim that manufacturers manipulate and create consumer demand plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
(A) It is one of the claims on which the conclusion is based.
(B) It is the conclusion of the argument.
(C) It states the position argued against.
(D) It states a possible objection to the argument's conclusion.
(E) It provides supplementary background information.
答案是A),那么哪一句是结论呢? 我个人认为选D), 结论是第一句话, 这句话是对结论的反驳 欢迎探讨. 作者: mindfree 时间: 2003-9-5 10:22
Unfortunately, asnwer is A.
The conclusion is "...their motive in advancing this theory must be something other than disinterested concern for scientific truth. "
When I read the question, I felt that each sentence was the starting sentence of a paragraph in an RC article, and each expressed the central meaning of the paragraph. The first sentecne gave you the commonly seen statement. Then different claims were made and evidence were presented (not in this CR though), then the original statement was countered and new conclusion was drawn.
I think your problem lies in understanding. Without understanding, you cannot crack CR or RC. So read the sentence and get to understand what it means
Anyway.作者: jq_jou 时间: 2003-9-5 10:32 标题: THX, BUT... the last sentence begins with 'since...' seems to make explanation, more like a cause than a conclusion. By the way, when I re-read the paragraph, i found maybe the conclusion is not within this paragraph, seems the author makes 2 claims, the first sentence and the second, the 3rd sentence is just more detailed description/explanation about the 2nd claim. How do u think about this? Anyway, THX!作者: mindfree 时间: 2003-9-5 11:57
You are right: since A, B. Simply there are a premise and a conclusion in one sentence. So you do not understand a whole sentence by reading the first word.
The first claim (first sentence) is not by the writer. It is a "mainstream theory", which means it is a commonly held opinion. As you read on, you at least should realize that the write is trying to counter this opinion.
The last one (conclusion) is based on the second sentence. So it is not a more detailed description. Similar example showing the same relationship is: only stupid people are watching TV (like second sentence). Since (!) he watches TV (premise), he is stupid (conclusion)作者: jq_jou 时间: 2003-9-6 05:02 标题: Thx and... Do u think we should study the CR of LSAT as deeply as that of GMAT? Sometimes, i found to understand the meaning of questions and choices of LSAT is more difficult than GMAT, especially during limited time. However, if i have enough time while i review the LSAT questions, i know why i did it wrongly. So is this a big problem while taking test? I mean normally we wonot meet such especially long questions while taking test, right?