Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
B 正确没有问题。
A有点想不明白，S说a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent,但实际上失业率很有有可能要比这个高，没准还高很多。A排除了这种情况。是说错在rarely上？还是有反对前提的嫌疑？
希望明白人给我解释一下。感谢
R的潜台词是国家的unemployment很严重了。
S的潜台词是R所说的现象（90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed）很正常。
用not+weaken来看
A反过来之后的意思是 normal levels of unemployment are always exceeded 那就加强了S的意思，nomal levels of unemployment本来就更高，所以R说的现象就更正常了。
我是这么想……open discussion
R说是也很严重
S说失业没那么严重
A选项not+weaken后是normal levels of unemployment are always exceeded ，改变了S的前提呢，S的前提是在正常的情况下。
好像还有一点想不通，因为有B选项存在，所以A选项不是必要条件，还有没有别的解释能把A毙掉呢？
下面是之前一个帖子的内容，只是没讲A
Roland说：国内90%的人都说自己认识某个失业的人！值得警惕了！
Sharon: 这很正常啊，比如就拿一个正常的事业率5%来说，就意味着20个人里有一个是失业的。所以，如果一个人他认识大约50个工作的人，那非常可能其中就有1个或更多个失业的呀
在这里，其实Sharon的理论是根据概率论的基本原理来的，例如说如果全国人民中奖率是10%，那就等于说10个人有1个会中奖。但在这个结论里做了总体样本是平均分布的假设（通俗点来说是机会均等），也就是说，如果全国人民如果就浙江人民在中奖的话，你如果在上海，你认识的10个人里就不会有人会中奖。
B选项说：失业情况不会集中在地理孤立的某些地区人口上 （你可以想象如果上海人民全失业了...）
R说现在失业率不正常
S举了个例子说没什么不正常的
于是S的Assumption应该有助于说明：S所说的例子能够说明现在的失业率正常
A选项讲正常水平并不是常常比超过就是无关选项了
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |