ChaseDream

标题: GWD-3-Q32 [打印本页]

作者: dorislee1991 时间: 2009-11-1 01:31
标题: GWD-3-Q32

1.Newspaper editorial: GWD-3-Q32

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 from 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.

答案是c,但是我觉得一个都不对。c说上了college-course的没有比较少犯罪，那就说明这个课没用，既然没用，deny这个课又怎么会是counter政府的goal呢

作者: ARCHER420 时间: 2009-11-1 02:03

C是对的。

C说参加大学课程的牢犯样本并不是原本就比其他牢犯更倾向于释放后不犯罪。

既是说参加大学课程的样本和不参加大学课程的样本原来都是一样的。但学习后，那些样本比较不容易再犯。

打个比方，牢犯都是杀人犯，20年徒刑。一些参加课程，一些不参加。那些参加的刑满释放后，不容易再犯。

如果一批人是盗窃1年徒刑，另一些人是杀人20年徒刑。都去参加课程，你说释放后再犯的可能性哪个更大呢？这个就不好说了，因为样本本来就不同他们心理不同。本来释放后再犯的可能性也不一样。常理上考虑，杀人犯再犯的可能性大，因为他们重罪，不容易被人认可。容易被社会遗弃，更加逆反。

作者: zznn1988 时间: 2010-12-24 20:31
这道题我纠结了好一会儿。。C我理解sl说的意思了。那A是什么意思各位能不能解释一下啊？？为什么不是A?
A不是说不上学部可能阻止犯罪吗？那是不是能理解为上了学就有可能组织犯罪？这跟原文意思是一致呀？？

还望解答！！

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-24 22:27
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.

The key to understand the reasoning behind the answer choice C is the following:
Let's say a group CDer got high GMAT scores. Then a promoter says that everyone should join CD since by joining CD, you can have high GMAT scores. Hold your horse. What if those who joined CD were high achievers in the first place? If this is true, then the whole argument falls apart. Therefore the promoter must assume that those who joined CD are NO different from those who DID NOT in terms of getting a high GMAT score! This is what answer C tries to establish as an assumption in order to make the argument more likely!

Choice A on the other hand, says that Not joining CD is unlikely to prevent a person from getting a high score in GMAT. This is not what the promote assumes for his arugment. In fact, it is contrary to what the promoter wants to establish. If without joining CD, one can still get high scores in GMAT, why should one join CD? So A is not the right assumption to keep.

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