-- by 会员 kakahbwyb (2012/10/8 17:08:19)
Q22.
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms
are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street
corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,
these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we
propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the
number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the
proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?
A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private tele-
phones and records where they came from.
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs
five million dollars annually.
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more informa-
tion about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed
from an alarm box.
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire depart-
ment’s capacity for responding to fires.
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones
in
THE ANSWER IS C,但我认为是D，D可以加强结论，即
without hampering people’s ability to report a fire，but more pricisely.
不知大家有何高见？
My answer is A!
我们要证明的是可以REDUCE那些恶意的电话, 如果象A说的, PHONE CALL可以追踪的, 那么就没有人会打恶意电话了.
谢谢大家的回答，看来C还是有一定道理的。A有点绕的太远了，有太多种的可能。either A and C has its advantage.the conclusion here is :Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire" the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs. If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined. But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent. It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly
here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire"
the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs.
If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined.
But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent.
It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly
我觉得是不是D的最后露了fire alarms calls
support "noback"
A，对火警电话进行记录跟踪，进而可以查虚假火警，达到argument中proposal的目的：减少虚假火警电话；只要陈述清楚的人，都不会阻碍报警能力，如果不能陈述清楚的人，则alarm box/privage telephone都不能清晰报警。
B，无关
C，如果用私人电话慌报火警，则不能达到目的：减少假火警电话。而且，C表达出：private不但不hamper，而且还enhance，是不是有点过？
D，有必要reduce，而不能说明argument中proposal能否达到其目的：减少假火警电话/不会阻碍人们报火警；
E，无关
support "noback"
A，对火警电话进行记录跟踪，进而可以查虚假火警，达到argument中proposal的目的：减少虚假火警电话；只要陈述清楚的人，都不会阻碍报警能力，如果不能陈述清楚的人，则alarm box/privage telephone都不能清晰报警。
C，如果用私人电话慌报火警，则不能达到目的：减少假火警电话。而且，C表达出：private不但不hamper，而且还enhance，是不是有点过？
不同意gavin的看法。C说的是用私人电话报警能提供更多与火灾有关的信息，注意，这里是和alarm placed from an alarm box比，偶的理解是，alarm box应该是表示警钟，就是如果遇到火警拉响之类的东东，与能不能陈述清楚的能力并无关系。
同意gonghao斑斑的看法，偶也在AC之间犹豫了许久，A偏重于reduce the number of prank calls而C则偏重于 without hampering people’s ability to report a fire，真系十分两难。。。最后偶选的时候是自己觉得C讲的东东比较重要所以选的C，其实心里也没有底，这种题目考试遇上了就只能认命吧。。。
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
我觉得这道题目应该是C
A为什么不对：原文已经说了，绝大多数的假信息都是从街上的fire alarm来的，所以只要如SFC所说，取消街道上的fire alarm，虚假信息自然会减少。 那么，A所说的，会追踪来电话的人，即便起到威慑作用，对于虚假信息的减少也没有作用。（因为毕竟无聊到用private calll来报假信息的人还是少数）
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms
are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street
corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,
these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we
propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the
number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the
proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?
A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private tele-
phones and records where they came from.
我选A。
A其实就是针对without hampering people’s ability to report a fire来说的：FIRE ALARM是可以被TRACE的，那么取消FIRE ALARM后，如果私人报警电话同样能被TRACE到，那么警方也同样可以了解到失火地点的位置。<并不是去DETER某些PRANK CALL.>
C项其实在取消FIRE ALARM之前和之后，都是既成事实，对结论不起任何作用。所以是无关。
选项C 将私人电话和自动报警装置作比较。但是原文并不要求telephone call提供更准确的信息，而是要减少虚假的火警。支持A。因为人为报警在人被火困出现诸如窒息的情况下，人是无法正确提供灾情信息的。而如果fire department自动跟踪私人电话的话，就避免了hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
LS同学好象考虑得太多了,完全超出了题目的范围.做CR只能推一层意思,不能再深入了.
而且题目结论不仅仅是减少虚假火警,更要不能"hampering people’s ability to report a fire." 这句是重点.A最多最多是减少了虚假火警,对于hampering people’s ability to report a fire没有提供任何的信息.
C中 A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.
alarm box应该是指外面有个透明罩子的报警器,火灾放生时就砸破或打开罩子按下警铃报警. 当然这样的报警装置也可以提供火警发生的所在地点,和LS同学说的支持A选项的例子发挥的功能是一样的.
我认为答案是D.
原题中条件有二:
①巨量的假火警来自于alarm box.
②几乎每个人都有私人电话,所以alarm box已经没用.
① + ② => 结论: a.取消alarm box可以减少假火警, b.并且不会阻碍人们报火警.
这里条件有两个,结论也有两个.
其中①=>a, 这是无懈可击的.
但是②=>b，这个推理过程是有问题，因为必须承认"assumption:用私人电话报火警不会受阻碍"才行．
现在问哪个选项能support原题结论，也就是问哪个能support以上assumption.
A. 追踪跟记录，这与阻碍与否无关
B. 费用问题，不在讨论范围内．没钱，政府拨款就解决了．
C．私人电话能提供更多信息，如果电话线路经常断（如盗割通讯电缆，最近<<案件聚焦>>刚提过），那么私人电话就没用了．
D. "应付假火警报"降低了消防队应付火灾的能力．与C中我假设的情况相比，这是从另一个角度support那个assumption:如果消防队的报警系统总是忙于处理假火警（如电话线路大量地被假火警占用），那么这时即使有真火警，也打不进电话了，于是阻碍了人们报警．相反，如果没有假火警来占用电话线路，那么真火警很容易通过电话传到消防队． 所以D正确
E. 公用电话bala bala. 与私人电话没关系．
继续讨论．．．．．．
选A吧。
这个proposal产生的原因就是因为the vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners。所以most strongly supports the claim that the proposal will have the announced effect的肯定是跟减少prank calls有关而不是和报警的能力有关。
总结一下，原文有两个目的
1。reduce the number of prank calls
2。without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
争论是，support应该加强第一个目的还是第二个目的
答案A和C：
A made from private telephones and records where they came from.
（alarm box本身是可以被追踪location的，这算是个背景知识吧，同意michaellu说的）私人电话可以被追踪，达到和alarm box定位一样的作用（哪里发生了火灾）（然而私人电话不会有prank call）
这个答案满足了原文结论的两个目的，减少prank call，也达到alarm box一样的定位位效果（如果没有定位功能就会hamper people's ability to report a fire)
C 是说这样可以提供more information about the nature and size of a fire。 提供火灾的大小和性质信息其实和本题所说的目的：prank call和hamper people's ability to report a fire无关。因为原文需要support的是私人电话没有牵制人们的能力，而不是增强了其他什么能力，比如报告火灾的大小和性质
希望nn出来指正
是选C，题目中表达的意思是取消了alarm box ，是不会影响人们报火警的，因为
private telephones 。
C选项正好是表达了这个意思。
而A中只是说可以trace到where they came from，这个是无关选项
支持raikey，支持D，以下是引用raikey的分析
我认为答案是D.
原题中条件有二:
巨量的假火警来自于alarm box.
几乎每个人都有私人电话,所以alarm box已经没用.
+ => 结论: a.取消alarm box可以减少假火警, b.并且不会阻碍人们报火警.
这里条件有两个,结论也有两个.
其中=>a, 这是无懈可击的.
但是=>b，这个推理过程是有问题，因为必须承认"assumption:用私人电话报火警不会受阻碍"才行．
现在问哪个选项能support原题结论，也就是问哪个能support以上assumption.
A. 追踪跟记录，这与阻碍与否无关
B. 费用问题，不在讨论范围内．没钱，政府拨款就解决了．
C．私人电话能提供更多信息，如果电话线路经常断（如盗割通讯电缆，最近<<案件聚焦>>刚提过），那么私人电话就没用了．
D. "应付假火警报"降低了消防队应付火灾的能力．与C中我假设的情况相比，这是从另一个角度support那个assumption:如果消防队的报警系统总是忙于处理假火警（如电话线路大量地被假火警占用），那么这时即使有真火警，也打不进电话了，于是阻碍了人们报警．相反，如果没有假火警来占用电话线路，那么真火警很容易通过电话传到消防队． 所以D正确
E. 公用电话bala bala. 与私人电话没关系．
继续讨论．．．．．．
support A....坚决认为是A
理由不重复了，前面有人说出了我的理由
我还是支持D，看完题目，第一反应是D啊，有NN吗？？？？
DFAF
either A and C has its advantage.the conclusion here is :Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire" the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs. If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined. But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent. It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly
here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire"
the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs.
If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined.
But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent.
It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly
here A much more focus on the "prank" ,meanwhile ,C is specialized on "hampering people’s ability to report a fire"
the conclusion will have good effect if the number of prnak calls decrese and the ability to report a fire is not weakened.The success relies on the both of these factros do their jobs.
If A become realized ,the number of prnak calls will decrese.If C is the truth ,the ability to report a fire won't be undermined.
But here A is a little be tricky here. fire department can trace all alarm calls not only make from private tele- phones and record where they came from but also alarm boxs do.But since the private calls are different from the alarm boxes that have no idea who make the calls ,choice A make some sence to some extent.
It's tough question here,and C maybe more concentrated on the the content emphasized in the argument--"without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.".So the reference answer here prefer to C firmly
同意a
从描述火警现场的角度讲（C），恶作剧的可能性没有降低（因为没说到私人电话如何能够限制恶作剧），但是报警能力不是“没有受到伤害”，而是加强了，所以它没有涉及到第一个条件，并且过度强化了第二个条件，我觉得是错误的
==================
以前选C,现在觉得好像A对啊.上面有道理.
C没有涉及到第一个条件,只是片面加强第二个条件,同时过分加强第二个.
而A:可以追踪,就取消了匿名恶作剧的可能.而报警能力方面其实只要不削弱,保持原样就可以.而电话报警的能力,就算是和按钮报警能力一样,但是减少了恶作剧就是胜利
support C!
亲爱的，这题你想得太多了。
1）EMMA同学好象考虑得太多了,完全超出了题目的范围.做CR只能推一层意思,不能再深入了.
2）其实你说的有一定道理：A偏重于reduce the number of prank calls而C则偏重于 without hampering people’s ability to report a fire。我们先不争论应该强调前面还是强调后面，我们仔细分析一下 A,C两项的表述。
3）A的说法是 The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private tele-phones and records where they came from.要是只推一层意思的话，这句话所给的信息不够达到原文的目的。能追踪谎报在哪里发出不能直接打到可以减少谎报的结论，因为有可能谎报的人都是不要命的人，给你追踪到就追踪到吧，我还是谎报我的。这就像增加了警力未必能减少犯罪一样，因为很可能大多数罪犯都是豁出去的，“俺不要命了！”
4）反观C:A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed from an alarm box.这句话其实就可以跟原文的without hampering people’s ability to report a fire很好对应上了。是很自然的过渡，属于一层推理。因此就选项本身的逻辑严密性而言，还是C比较好。
5）这里我们可以看到做逻辑题的一些技巧：正确的选项往往是带有比较意味的。就如这题，C中的MORE INFORMATION就是一个，我们在看到这些选项是，要特别小心，细心分析。反观A就没有比较意味了。
support A. agree "从描述火警现场的角度讲（C），恶作剧的可能性没有降低（因为没说到私人电话如何能够限制恶作剧），但是报警能力不是“没有受到伤害”，而是加强了，所以它没有涉及到第一个条件，并且过度强化了第二个条件，我觉得是错误的"
some saying "3）A的说法是 The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private tele-phones and records where they came from.要是只推一层意思的话，这句话所给的信息不够达到原文的目的。能追踪谎报在哪里发出不能直接打到可以减少谎报的结论，因为有可能谎报的人都是不要命的人，给你追踪到就追踪到吧，我还是谎报我的。这就像增加了警力未必能减少犯罪一样，因为很可能大多数罪犯都是豁出去的，“俺不要命了！” this "谎报" logic apply to C as well. the argument not compelling.
A 不对。
A和C比有个缺点，就算能trace到每台电话，又怎样呢？比如你从窗户里看到另一个街区的某幢房子着火了，于是你打电话报火警，你在电话里要告诉他们具体的方位，这是C，而不是光你的电话被trace就好了。
而D和C比，支撑强度D不如C。D说伪报会削弱消防队反应力度，这只是加强了指责恶作剧火警这一层意思，你可以立法惩罚，可以另外研制工具监测，但并不非要拆除警报器，要达到这一层次，必须要说明用电话报警一点也不亚于警报器。所以选C。
A为什么不对
我选A。是A是C还是D要从原文的结论涉及的因果关系下手。结论说了两个预期的effects，并且这两个effect有各自的因果。要支持结论，就要支持结论中每个小论点的因果联系。坚决的把目标锁定在讨论范围之内。在因果联系以外的东西，就不要根据常识假想。文中说：
1）撤掉alarm
box可以减少报假警的数量è因为大部分假警都是来自alarm
box，匿名的。（第一句话。这里关心的是假火警的数量问题，原文只想从他产生的根源来减少，除此之外没别的。例如“假火警有什么害处，减少以后就没有这个害处”不在讨论范围之中。）
2）撤掉alarm
box可以不影响人们报警的能力è因为人们都有手机（文中第二句话。这里关心的是能还是不能报警，或者说人们除了alarm
box之外还有没有途径报火警。至于别的途径有效到程度，提供什么样的信息，原文没有扯这么远）。
C. 用手机比用alarm box提供更多信息。对不起原文没有关心这么多。原文关心的是撤掉alarm box以后，人们还有没有途径来报火警。结论说人们有途径来报火警，因为人们都有手机。但是C却说用手机能提供更多信息，这怎么能支持“没有了alarm
box，人们也可以用手机报火警”这个结论呢？
D. 假火警占用了很多警方资源，搞的他们不能应对真的火警。这个选项告诉我们假火警的问题有什么后果，除此之外，他什么也不能支持。想想看原文结论是“撤掉alarm box可以减少假火警”。知道假火警有什么害处怎么能支持这个结论？最多是说“减少了假火警，就没有这个害处，警方就可以更好的应对真火警”。但那是在假火警已经减少的前提下成立的。
肯定是C
首先Dreduces the fire department’s capacity for responding to fires.
这个地方和文章的announced effect 中人们的report 能力一点关系都没有。故一定要省略。
然后a 和d，同时属于这个Effect的两个方面。看起来应该都可以。
不过，a是从侧面说明了减少prank call,并没有直接说。但是C则是直接提高了人们report的能力，因为他们能够report更加多的东西了。
一定要选择一个直接体现逻辑关系的选项。
所以我认为是C。
Springfield Fire Commissioner: the vast majority of false fire alarms
are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street
corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone,
these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we
propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the
number of prank calls without hampering people’s ability to report a fire.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the
proposal, if carried out, will have the announced effect?
A. The fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones and records where they came from.
B. Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costs
five million dollars annually.
C. A telephone call can provide the fire department with more information about the
nature and size of a fire than can an alarm placed
from an alarm box.
D. Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department’s capacity for responding to fires.
E. On any given day, a significant percentage of the public telephones
in
还是同意D。
D说明取消boxes 可以增加老百姓report a fire的ability（因为box产生的乱打电话导致接待火警的人忙于应付，反而正常的报警电话打不进来，阻碍了老百姓report a fire的ability），刚好加强。
C 说的是 telephone call 的物理属性，比较的是两种电话。但如果你在家里用telephone call报警给消防局，如果街边捣乱的电话很多一直占着消防局的线，你的ability 当然被hamper了！注意题目里问的是 without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. 而不是在讨论两种电话的优势、劣势！
D说明取消boxes 可以增加老百姓report a fire的ability（因为box产生的乱打电话导致接待火警的人忙于应付，反而正常的报警电话打不进来，阻碍了老百姓report a fire的ability），刚好加强。
C 说的是 telephone call 的物理属性，比较的是两种电话。但如果你在家里用telephone call报警给消防局，如果街边捣乱的电话很多一直占着消防局的线，你的ability 当然被hamper了！注意题目里问的是 without hampering people’s ability to report a fire. 而不是在讨论两种电话的优势、劣势！
楼上的卡不卡说的太好了！，坚定了俺选D的信念！
我觉得ＡＣ都很有道理．不知道现在有没有定论了？？
这道题og12th给出了答案，选A，此题要注意问的是supports the annouced effect.
题中proposal的announced effect有两个，答案需要支持至少其中一点：
1. removing the boxes will reduce prank calls
2. doing so will not hamper peopole's ability to report fires(因为打电话的途径很多，比如私人电话或公用电话)
只有A选项支持了1，其余选项都没有支持这两点。
B只是支持了proposal，但不是提出proposal的根本原因，C也没有支持任何一点，D只是相当于解释了the effects of prank calls, 而E说每天很多公用电话坏了相当于削弱了2。
终于看到了答案，我选的是A。。。这里的ability就是access to fire alarm的能力，是一个意思吧。
这道题og12th给出了答案，选A，此题要注意问的是supports the annouced effect.
题中proposal的announced effect有两个，答案需要支持至少其中一点：
1. removing the boxes will reduce prank calls
2. doing so will not hamper peopole's ability to report fires(因为打电话的途径很多，比如私人电话或公用电话)
只有A选项支持了1，其余选项都没有支持这两点。
B只是支持了proposal，但不是提出proposal的根本原因，C也没有支持任何一点，D只是相当于解释了the effects of prank calls, 而E说每天很多公用电话坏了相当于削弱了2。
我想请问OG上是怎么解释的？
我仍然很晕乎....D为什么不对~
Stephanie729 发表于 2012-8-11 21:47
我们先看fire alarm box是什么？ ——火灾报警器——你按一下，消防人员知道报警器所在的地方发生了火灾— ...
Stephanie729 发表于 2012-8-11 21:47
我们先看fire alarm box是什么？ ——火灾报警器——你按一下，消防人员知道报警器所在的地方发生了火灾— ...
yelplin 发表于 2006-8-9 20:13
谢谢大家的回答，看来C还是有一定道理的。A有点绕的太远了，有太多种的可能。[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-9 ...
gonghao 发表于 2006-9-11 15:08
either A and C has its advantage.the conclusion here is :Removing the boxes will reduce the number o ...
blsunday 发表于 2006-8-9 10:08
题干里是people’s ability to report a fire.选项D:firedepartment's capability to respond to a fire不 ...
Clair117 发表于 2015-11-15 04:15
题中给出的结论是：拆掉 fire alarm boxes 以后，fire department 可以减少接到谎报火警的电话的数量 并且 ...
blsunday 发表于 2006-8-9 10:08
题干里是people’s ability to report a fire.选项D:firedepartment's capability to respond to a fire不 ...
AnnieFFish 发表于 2016-9-8 15:29
说一下自己的理解
这是一个方案推理
Clair117 发表于 2015-11-15 04:15
题中给出的结论是：拆掉 fire alarm boxes 以后，fire department 可以减少接到谎报火警的电话的数量 并且 ...
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |
