标题: LSAT-1-1-13 [打印本页] 作者: dansy 时间: 2003-12-27 21:40 标题: LSAT-1-1-13 Top college graduates are having more difficulty demonstrating their superiority to prospective employers than did the top students of twenty years ago when an honors degree was distinction enough. Today’s employers are less impressed with the honors degree. Twenty years ago no more than 10 percent of a given class graduated with honors. Today, however, because of grade inflation, the honors degree goes to more than 50 percent of a graduating class. Therefore, to restore confidence in the degrees they award, colleges must take steps to control grade inflation. Which one of the following is an assumption that, if true, would support the conclusion in the passage? (A) Today’s students are not higher achievers than the students of twenty years ago. (B) Awarding too many honors degrees causes colleges to inflate grades. (C) Today’s employers rely on honors ranking in making their hiring decisions. (D) It is not easy for students with low grades to obtain jobs. (E) Colleges must make employers aware of the criteria used to determine who receives an honors degree. 答案是A， 我能理解。但是答案C呢？我觉得如果取非，大学也就没有必要控制学分的问题了呀。 作者: dansy 时间: 2003-12-28 11:25
咦，没有人回答呢。是不是这问题有点弱智啊？作者: rabbitbug 时间: 2003-12-28 16:41
C选项中的making their hiring decisions.是out of scope, 因为题目中的逻辑陈述没有提及任何跟公司随后的雇佣决定有关,只是说:"honor的比例的变化影响了honor的学生给公司的印象", 引用一个NN的理论: assumption的题型, 有两种解法: 搭桥和排除它因, A 中是排除它因,那如果想用搭桥法的话,也要从原文的逻辑上面入手, out of scope的就不合适了.
这个问题不弱智, 只是怕自己又不是NN, 怕误导了MM.作者: zida 时间: 2003-12-28 19:31
“Today’s employers are less impressed with the honors degree.” So, I think C weakened the conclusion. Comments?作者: rabbitbug 时间: 2003-12-28 22:02
在做LSAT的时候, 这种偷换动词引入不同概念的伎俩, 如这里的impression换成decision making, 太多了, 被骗了很多次, 所以还请楼上的朋友参考一下几个LSAT的题, 看看是不是这个道理? LSAT-13-1-23的D选项, LSAT-12-4-20的B选项.作者: dreadpower 时间: 2003-12-28 22:24
个人观点： 关于assumption，有几个点 1.+not 削弱 (彻底削弱还是不彻底削弱,观点不同) 2.必要条件, 即选项是从原文信息中推衍出来的（必要条件）, 但一般不能是充分条件 3.take it for granted : 理所当然, 这点看你怎么理解了
