ChaseDream

标题: 一道OG中迷糊的题og-8 [打印本页]

作者: 5332649 时间: 2004-2-4 09:42
标题: 一道OG中迷糊的题og-8
请那位DX指教:
8. To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.
B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.
C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.

D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.
E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.

D和E那个对呢? 答案为D

我利用取非削弱原则,E也可以是削弱啊

作者: terry_awesome 时间: 2004-2-4 15:26
选D。首先D 明显是一个ASSUMPTION，如果这些 HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS不能做LOBBYSIT那前面的COLUSION就是MEANINGLESS。对与答案E，是无关选项。OFFICER目前能做多少年的LOBBIST，与他们离开OFFICE后几年后才能开始做LOBBIST是不一样的。

作者: 5332649 时间: 2004-2-4 16:09

以下是引用terry_awesome在2004-2-4 15:26:00的发言：
选D。首先D 明显是一个ASSUMPTION，如果这些 HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS不能做LOBBYSIT那前面的COLUSION就是MEANINGLESS。对与答案E，是无关选项。OFFICER目前能做多少年的LOBBIST，与他们离开OFFICE后几年后才能开始做LOBBIST是不一样的。

我怎么得不出你的翻译,我的翻译是现在允许那些离开政府的工作人员只能从事3年的说客工作.

作者: 5332649 时间: 2004-2-4 16:13
我们可以把'currently'也视为无关吗?

作者: terry_awesome 时间: 2004-2-4 16:51
理解存在差异。关键看你如何理解这2句话。
prohibit......from....as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service.
我认为是：离开工作岗位3年内，禁止OFFCIER做LOBBIST.3年后就能做LOBBIST。
答案E则是：他们现在被允许只能做3年的LOBBIST。同时没说时间是否限制在离岗后3年内。
我考虑下，E解释为反对选项更好。因为：
如果一开始每人只允许做3年LOBBIST，现在政府只限制了离岗后的3年，那离岗后3年后第四年开始又能做3年的LOBBIST，那对于OFFCIER实际上还是3年的LOBBIST，没有那个这个禁令是unfortunat的CONCLUSTION。

不知道我表书清楚没。综合，D。

作者: 5332649 时间: 2004-2-5 18:01
thanks for your detail answer, and think about 取非削弱 again, the best answer should be D.

作者: cocoabean 时间: 2004-4-20 07:54

The official’s argument does not depend on the assumption in E, since the argument would not be invalidated if former high-level government officials could act as lobbyists indefinitely.

请高人帮忙翻译一下这句,双重否定句,

我理解为: 如果officials 还不能决定是否以后做lobbyists, 则此论点是成立的. 应该是只能决定做lobbyists时, 结论成立.

怎么我翻译的正好反了????

请指教, thanks

作者: JerryGuan 时间: 2004-4-24 22:35

这个if former high-level government officials could act as lobbyists indefinitely. 应该就是对E选项的取非 (E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.)

试翻：

The official’s argument没有建立在assumpton E上，因为此argument不会无效，假如高官可以无限制地做lobbyists.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-24 22:36:01编辑过]

作者: tangjinrangmat 时间: 2005-3-30 17:56

对d取非，official 的conclusion就无法成立，而对E取非就没这个效果

作者: swlfx 时间: 2005-5-19 16:41
对E取非就是“高层官员可以做说客超过三年”，讨论时间不同，无法削弱原文的结论。

作者: welkin 时间: 2005-6-15 17:36
这一题还是没有弄懂，选答案我会去选D，本来挺清楚的，但是如果对E取非就糊涂了的，取非后意思为“做说客可以不止3年” ，那是不是对结论that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.进行了削弱呢？因为E取非后直接就否定了because后面的内容啊。看来我对削弱的理解还是有很大的漏洞，请达人指导啊。。。

作者: wingkim 时间: 2005-9-8 23:27

以下是引用welkin在2005-6-15 17:36:00的发言：
这一题还是没有弄懂，选答案我会去选D，本来挺清楚的，但是如果对E取非就糊涂了的，取非后意思为“做说客可以不止3年” ，那是不是对结论that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.进行了削弱呢？因为E取非后直接就否定了because后面的内容啊。看来我对削弱的理解还是有很大的漏洞，请达人指导啊。。。

原文说的是在从政府离职后三年内无法挣钱维持生活（三年），注意是focusing离职后立即产生的效果，重点不是能做多少年的说客。而E只是关注能做多少年说客，忽略了离职后的连续三年。

作者: oceanalma 时间: 2005-9-26 21:10

是不是assum题目，都是要跟题目中的细节有关系的，不能出现无关选项？

作者: 西点 时间: 2005-10-10 03:42

政府官员的谋生之道会被不幸阻止除非政府官员唯一的生财之道就是做这种说客

作者: chyyoung780 时间: 2005-10-15 23:31

恩看了樓上的解釋反而覺得滿清楚的

作者: 风过疏竹 时间: 2005-10-29 02:37

以下是引用wingkim在2005-9-8 23:27:00的发言：

原文说的是在从政府离职后三年内无法挣钱维持生活（三年），注意是focusing离职后立即产生的效果，重点不是能做多少年的说客。而E只是关注能做多少年说客，忽略了离职后的连续三年。

还有西点的解释非常清楚。

这个题目我先也是想了很久，后来觉得如果这个官员的结论要成立的话，必要条件就是做说客是他们谋生的唯一途径，这样才能证明他说的话。

而答案E和其他答案一样都是无关选项

作者: hitlzc 时间: 2005-11-6 18:38

我应用lawyer的解题方法对OG-8的解题思路,有不对的地方请指正:

8. To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.

B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.

C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.

D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists. D

E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.

解题思路：1. 确定为assumption类型(由问题中assumption判断出)；

2．找出结论(由题干中conclude判断出): One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years. 关键词:livelihood 即B部分

3. 找出前提(结论之前为前提): To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. 关键词:lobbyist 即A部分

4. 找出support选项(架桥) 准确表达两个关键词的关系

作者: danfulee 时间: 2006-1-5 10:39
E选项不是一个assumption来的，而是一个statements of facts。

作者: muchen 时间: 2006-1-10 22:12

题目倒是看懂了，选项也很明显，只是被OG的解释绕晕了，欢迎高人把我绕出来：

为了阻止一些利益冲突，议会可以禁止高官在离职三年内接受说客的工作。然而，一个官员得出结论，这种禁令不合宜，因为这会使高官三年无法赚钱谋生。

这个官员的结论依据哪个假设？－－ D. 离职高官只能靠做说客赚钱谋生。

OG的排除四个错误选项用的是一种方法，但我绕不明白它的解释，例如

A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.

解释是：The official's argument does not depend on the assumption in A, since the argument would not be invalidated if some restrictions on the behavior of government officals were desirable.

怎么解释呢，怎么和原文联系起来呢。

作者: muchen 时间: 2006-1-10 22:40

A.法律不应该禁止前政府官员的行为

如果一些政府官员行为的禁令是合宜的，观点就不会无效。

作者: yk320329 时间: 2006-2-4 01:54

同问，题目能做出来，OG对错误选项的解释却看不明白，请高人指点。

作者: 司香尉 时间: 2006-3-6 16:56
OG的解释很清楚呀，就是把4个错误选项分别取非，但是结论没有变得无效，所以排除。

作者: majestic 时间: 2006-4-19 11:35
the meaning of "livelihood" is make a living. It jmeans that officials can't do anything other than as lobbists

作者: sam1981 时间: 2006-7-27 15:35

把E项取非，则为答案中的indefinitely,看上去是有削弱结论的迹象，但允许当lobbyist的起始时间没有，则不能对离职后的三年进行削弱，得用到结论的具体性！

作者: sam1981 时间: 2006-7-27 15:50
补充：E选项中不论是三年还是不确定的年数都是对高官可以当说客的肯定，这与原体中讨论的高官不可以当说客是不相关的，所以此选项应该是作为无关项处理，终于绕出来了

作者: sam1981 时间: 2006-7-28 21:09

题目中说因为不让干所以没饭吃，由此看来E绝对是个无关项，本身与讨论的话题就相悖。我觉得对无关项用取非法，有时确实会出现削弱结论的效果，最好先用有关无关排除，再用取非，毕竟取非只是为了检验。有漏洞，有漏洞，一定要结合具体性考虑。

作者: KATIEUS 时间: 2006-10-30 18:11
楼上的解释太棒了！

作者: ranran325 时间: 2008-6-8 11:32

看了前辈的观点,终于明白了...

条件:禁止3年内游说

结论:禁止游说就会没饭吃

GAP:游说=吃饭

要削弱的结论是:

such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

D项 earning a livelihood only as lobbyists

对D项取非不用游说都有饭吃,削弱了结论

E项 currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years

对E项取非

作者: ranran325 时间: 2008-6-8 11:37

对E项取非

government officials could act as lobbyists indifinitely 假设不要indifinitely ,5年就好了----如果离职后就开始计算,即使后两年可以作为游说者,前三年因为政府禁止还是没饭吃,削弱不了结论;如果离职三年后才开始计算,那么即使后5年有饭吃,那三年还是没饭吃,同样削弱不了结论

总之无论怎么算,都有三年没有饭吃!

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