ChaseDream

标题: LSAT-26-2-23 [打印本页]

作者: snow_mountain 时间: 2003-12-16 16:01
标题: LSAT-26-2-23
23. Candidate: The government spends $500 million
more each year promoting highway safety than it
spends combating cigarette smoking. But each year
many more people die from smoking-related
diseases than die in highway accidents. So the
government would save lives by shifting funds
from highway safety programs to antismoking
programs.
The flawed reasoning in which one of the
following arguments most closely parallels the
flawed reasoning in the candidate’s argument?
(A) The government enforces the speed limit on
freeways much more closely than on tollways. But
many more people die each year in auto accidents
on freeways than die in auto accidents on
tollways. So the government would save lives by
shifting funds from enforcement of speed limits
on freeways to enforcement of speed limits on
tollways.
(B) A certain professional musician spends
several times as many hours practicing guitar as
she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired
much more often to play saxophone than to play
guitar, so she would increase her number of
playing engagements by spending less time
practicing guitar and more time practicing
saxophone.
(C) Automobiles burn more gas per minute on
highways than residential streets. But they get
fewer miles per gallon on residential streets.
Therefore, gas would be saved by driving less on
residential streets and more on highways.
(D) The local swim team spends many more hours
practicing the backstroke than it spends
practicing the breaststroke. Nut the team’s lap
times for the breaststroke are much better than
its times for the backstroke, so the team would
win more swim meets if it spent less time
practicing the backstroke and more time
practicing the breaststroke.
(E) Banks have a higher profit margin on loans
that have a high interest rate than on loans that
have a low interest rate. But borrowers are
willing to borrow larger sums at low rates than
at high rates. Therefore, banks would be more
profitable if they gave more loans on low rates
and fewer loans at high rates.

答案，B。这个没问题，但我觉得D也对。哪个帮忙解释解释。

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-12-16 16:07:52编辑过]

作者: shizhen 时间: 2003-12-17 06:00
I got same confusion too. In fact, I think D is even better than B. Come on, NN's, help us!

作者: snow_mountain 时间: 2003-12-19 09:45
居然没人回答。郁闷。

作者: Snazzy 时间: 2003-12-19 11:23
Let me try, man,
The origion: $500 million more on highway safety (X) >> $ on smoking(Y), but Y has more Death, so more money should go to Y

choiceB): more time spent on guitar(X)>>on saxophone(Y), but Y is more useful as the musician is more hired to play saxophone, so more time should be spent on Y -----Good

choiceD): more time spent on backstroke(X)>>on breaststroke(Y), but lap time(Z)of breaststroke(Y) is much better, so more time should be spent on Y ----- different

作者: snow_mountain 时间: 2003-12-19 12:40
嘻嘻，看明白了。发现自己经常看题目不仔细。烦。

作者: Snazzy 时间: 2003-12-19 12:47
标题: LSAT-26-2-23
i have the same problem, especially when time is tight, really bad, let's try

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-1 16:41

snow_mountain 发表于 2003-12-16 16:01
23. Candidate: The government spends $500 millionmore each year promoting highway safety than itspen ...

Spot the question type - method of reasoning: Flaws.

Reasoning patterns of the argument

A will do B for C, but A will not do B for D, but E happen more in D but not in C, so If A will do B for D, E will not happen.

Flaw: ( B could be a sufficient condition to No E for C, but it does not mean that B must be necessary for D to not have E )

A. Wrong. A will do B more on C than D, but E happens more in C than D, so If A do B more on D than C, E will not happen more in C - ( 狗屁不通, 請自行比較）

B. A do B in C as A do B in D, and E of D is more than E of C, so If less B in C and more B in D, E will be more

( Treating the sufficient condition as if it is the necessary condition ) - Bingo

C. A behaves more B in C than D, but A also behaves less E in C than D, So , if F is less on D than C, B could be saved. - It presumes the relationship between F and B. So, does not match.

D. A act B more in C than D, A perform E more in D than C, so if less B in C and more B in D, " G " will happen. - it presumes the relationship between E and G. So, does not match.

E. A have more B in C than D, but E is willing to do more G in D than C, So, A will have more B if B allows E do more G in D than C - 1. presumes the relationship between B allows G to E do more G. 2. there is no flaw that treating sufficient condition as necessary condition.

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-1 16:49

Snazzy 发表于 2003-12-19 11:23
Let me try, man,The origion: $500 million more on highway safety (X) >> $ on smoking(Y), but Y has m ...

Unfortunately, your explain is really incorrect.

1. It's not only comparing the structure of the argument, but also how the flaw " be structured " within the argument.

Original argument compared the differences of E from the variations of B conducted by A in both C and D to conclude that if B is sufficient enough to cause the difference in E, then if we want to have " that particular differences in E ", we must also have that variation of B.

Thats why B is the correct answer.

The reason why D is not a correct answer is because it also link the " lap time " to " win more swim meets " . It might reasonable to assume that better the lap time, more the wins; however, logically, to justify that correlation, we need to provide the evidence of it.

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