ChaseDream

标题: 一道GWD题——兼论关于常识在逻辑题中作用的问题—— [打印本页]

作者: drift_er 时间: 2005-11-21 08:20
标题: 一道GWD题——兼论关于常识在逻辑题中作用的问题——

Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training

even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations

many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations

after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth

even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth

该题G给的答案是A。我认为是E

但是A使用了常识：多投资于教育和培训有助于经济增长。但是事实上这个常识值得怀疑，因为任何一件事都要有个度，多投资于教育未必有助于经济增长。A虽有他因解释的意思，但是并不妥当。请大家讨论。

作者: howardwang 时间: 2005-11-21 15:19

理应是A.

我的意见，仅供参考！

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&replyid=143016&id=143016&page=1&skin=0&Star=2

作者: shaoheli 时间: 2005-11-22 23:15

同意楼主，答案应该是E.

论述的结论应该是这句This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth，高亮部分是关键词。E说即使states with very weak environmental regulations 也有经济增长，说明regulation与growth关系不大，直接证明does not show。

一家直言，仅供参考。

作者: steveyangxt 时间: 2005-12-16 16:50
e 中with very weak environmental regulations 也有经济增长，不能削弱论点，反而加强。环保规则弱，增长又，但不大，环保规则严的，经济增长很大，说明规则还是起了作用的。

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