Some guys happened to choose C with an incorrect understanding and explanation. Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E.The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.
选A吧 取非削弱就行啦
对A取非：Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed
不能上课则会镇压犯罪 刚好是对结论的削弱
而C选项取非会加强结论！
选C,
那些选择大学教育的罪犯原来并不会比那些没有选的罪犯在释放后少犯罪，也就说明support了大学教育是有助于减少罪犯再犯罪的，enhance了一些人对于政府措施的argument.
原文中并没有用harsher condition来deter犯罪的意图，而且从理解上在监狱里罪犯是无法犯罪的，所以不存在间监狱里deter。所以答案A属于out of scope
C
注意理解这个意思："who chose to take" ... "were not already less likely"
意思是说培训之前，选择参加培训的人并非比例低，可以证明培训本身起到降低比例的作用
CCCCCC
请注意C、The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
并非说“这帮修课的人进监狱的时候就已经很斯文了”，而是说“这帮修课的人并不比不修课的人在释放后更少犯罪”。
应该选A 本文前提：参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。 结论：政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。 取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设（支持）。 A取非：不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率）取非后，使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。 C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。（注意：not less两个否定。）违反前提（而非削弱前提），怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢？ 且C取非后：参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。）取非后，使原推理过程绝对成立，必不为支持（假设）选项。 |
选C
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
政府为了减少犯罪率，采用了一种方法就是降低监狱的舒适度。其中一部分努力就是剥夺罪犯在监狱里读大学的机会。但是，这个举措与政府的目标是相反的。因为释放以后，在监狱里读过大学课程的罪犯明显比其它罪犯犯罪率低。
问 哪个选项是原文的一个假设，也就是支持
c的意思是，选择念大学课程的罪犯不会比其它罪犯不容易犯罪
其实就是说大学课程与犯罪率的相关性，
读过大学课程的人群少犯罪 所以大学课程可以降低犯罪率
这个逻辑明显是有问题的，需要排除其它因素，就选C
其实这道题关键就在结论的那句话
前面的就是介绍一个background
这道题的逻辑错误就是强加因果关系
读过大学课程与犯罪率之间的因果关系被强加了
通过assumption来解决这个问题
感觉逻辑就是要真正理解题目，不太同意取非这些技巧性的东西
C
其实这道题关键就在结论的那句话
前面的就是介绍一个background
这道题的逻辑错误就是强加因果关系
读过大学课程与犯罪率之间的因果关系被强加了
通过assumption来解决这个问题
感觉逻辑就是要真正理解题目，不太同意取非这些技巧性的东西
C. You are the only one who really understands this question. Some guys happened to choose C with an incorrect understanding and explanation.
分析技巧运用的前提是把内容理解清楚。如果原文的意思都没理解清楚，没有抓住文章句子的实际内涵就搞技巧，非啊非的，非错不可。
题目主干是说削减了教育，但参加过教育的人出来后再犯罪率低，观点是不应削减教育。
选项C说明那些“主动选择”参加教育的人本身并非再犯罪率较低的人，这样就证明了教育是使得再犯罪率降低的因素，强化了“不应削减教育”这个观点。
这个题目的观点就好像说不能取消吃饭，因为吃过饭会饱；而选项C就相当于说那些去吃饭的人，并非吃饭前就已经饱了的，说明确实是吃饭（而不是其他原因）使得他们饱了。
正确理解了意思，就简单了。逻辑应当变成自然而然的思路，而不是与非技巧，至少GMAT考试不是逻辑技巧测验，不存在复杂的必须模型化才能进行分析的问题。特别是这种提供附加证据（通常是问加强或者问假设）的情形，证据和结论之间的关系是比较弱的，所以才有多个证据逐一强化观点的情形。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |