ChaseDream

标题: 求一道逻辑考题！！！ [打印本页]

作者: s_dUSA 时间: 2010-9-28 21:45
标题: 求一道逻辑考题！！！
61. Investigators concluded that human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash last August, and since that time new and more stringent rules for identifying and reporting mechanical problems have been in effect. That accounts for the fact that reports of airplane mechanical problems have increased in frequency by 50 percent since last August.
Which one of the following is an assumption underlying the argument in the passage?
(A) Airplane travel is still relatively safe, despite the increase in reported mechanical problems.
(B) Mechanical problems in airplanes have increased dramatically since last August.
(C) Mechanical problems in airplanes have not increased by 50 percent since last August.
(D) Airlines are less reluctant to report mechanical problems than they previously were.
(E) Mechanical problems in airplanes have become easier to detect since last August.

这道题没什么，主要是问问那个第一句话：61. Investigators concluded that human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash last August,

有用吗？我感觉没啥用呢，是不是用来迷惑人的，LSAT考题还有用无关信息来迷惑人的吗，高人指点，万分感谢！！

61. Investigators concluded that human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash last August,

有用吗？我感觉没啥用呢，是不是用来迷惑人的，LSAT考题还有用无关信息来迷惑人的吗，高人指点，万分感谢！！

作者: taoransk 时间: 2010-9-29 15:08
这题好像是E吧?

记得作过可能...当时也挺晕的, 不过好像它的意思是不是人为那只能是机械故障了....也就是说, 因为检测不出某些机械故障, 可能在事故发生后会被认为是人为故障. 而前一年8月这次失事, 确切的检测出不是人为原因, 以次为契机而实施了更加敏感或更加严格的检测措施,使得以前被漏掉的机械故障更多的被通报........

恩...这个弯子绕的有够大的, 大概是这个意思吧我想.

查了下, 貌似就分人为和机械原因. 凡是导致飞机故障而出事,包括天气,飞鸟撞击,等等,都算应该. 而人为指的是机场没有标明跑道啊, 飞行员在鬼混而猴子在开飞机啊等等. 哦话说回来, 据说西方以前有次猪恐高放屁引起火警警报也算机械故障来着....

作者: s_dUSA 时间: 2010-9-29 20:56
谢谢您的回复，不过通过您的回复我更确定了一个信念：那句话确实没用。。。。

作者: s_dUSA 时间: 2010-9-29 20:57
大家不要管选什么好不好，关键不是选对了，是真正知道他的道理，这不是考试

作者: taoransk 时间: 2010-10-1 17:17
我也觉得很奇怪....LSAT按理说是由出题人全部梳理改写过的, 不应该存在无用信息的, 在阅读和推理题中往往甚至连说明里的某个词都可能决定最后成败 -.-

难道这个在美国英文背景人群里有什么特别意思不成...

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-11-4 09:46
LSAT people are not that dumb!

"Investigators concluded that human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash last August. . ." If it was not human error, it must have been mechanical failure that caused the crash! Therefore, the authority set up new and more stringent rules for identifying and reporting mechanical problems in order to prevent such mechanical failure from going unreported and causing more crashes.

As to the answers, C is the correct one since if you negate C, then you weaken the conclusion that the stringent rules have led to 50% increase in reports of mechanical problems since last August.

作者: taoransk 时间: 2010-11-6 21:50
坚定了.....我当时居然理解没错, 不是人为(非机械)就是机械问题....亏我还专门去看了FAA的事故定义

作者: Akiii 时间: 2018-9-8 18:03
我觉得并不是没有用的。
我做的时候是把human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash这句话当做结论来做的，还是做对了。
结论：人的失误并不是飞机事故的原因
P1：制定了规则更加严格地要求报告机器故障
P2: 机器故障的报告数增长了50%
这段话暗示的意思是，之前是机器故障并没有报告，导致飞机事故。这样才能推出结论：不是人的原因。

所以这里要找的假设是——更加严格的规则把以前没有报告的故障给揪了出来，使得真正的问题浮出了水面。

C Mechanical problems in airplanes have not increased by 50 percent since last August.意思是不是本身机器问题更多所以报告机械故障增长了50%，而是因为更严格了，报告得更多了才长了50%。
取非，Mechanical problems in airplanes have increased by 50 percent since last August. 本身机器故障增加了50%，以前是不是机器故障导致的事故并不知道。会削弱原结论。

作者: Emmayeli 时间: 2018-11-4 10:41

Akiii 发表于 2018-9-8 18:03
我觉得并不是没有用的。
我做的时候是把human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash ...

那请问E选项为啥不对呢？是错在easier to detect嘛？

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-7-23 17:12
考必要假設,

If " 原文的支持（充分條件發生）保證了原文的結論（必要條件的發生）, then ( 哪個必要假設一定要發生）

P1: new and more stringent rules for identifying and reporting mechanical problems have been in effect

P2: supported P1 as mid-con: report of the airplane mechanical problems have increased by 50 percent since last august

C: human failure was not responsible for the fatal airplane crash

If ( Strict regulation for reporting mechanical problem --> reports of mechanical problem increased by 50 percent ), then ( fatal airplane crash --> Human failure should not be responsible )

A. Does not really relevant to whether human being should be responsible for the crash or not.

B. Negate it, Mechanical problems in airplanes have " not " increased dramatically since last August. who to say 50% is dramatically or not dramatically ? Not really relevant to the original argument

C. Negate it, Mechanical problems in airplanes have " increased " by 50% since last August.

Please think in this way, If mechanical problems being reported " increased " 50%, Is it because of the strict regulation to request the report, the matter that higher the overall numbers of the report, if that's the case, then there must be " at least 1 " = " some " mechanical problems had not been reported before the air crash. However, even if we believed that " some " mechanical problems had not been reported before the air crash, we still can't assume that there are only 2 causes, human errors and mechanical problems, to bring the effect of air crash. Let's leave it.

D. Negate it, Airlines are " not " less reluctant to report mechanical problems than they previous were, which is they might be staying the same reluctantly or highly reluctant to report the mechanical problem now.

Please think in this way, if the attitude of reporting the problems are the same ( or even more reluctant ), and you have to report the problem due to the regulation, then the frequencies of mechanical problem truly do increase. - Strengthen the argument.

E. Negate it, Mechanical problems in airplanes have " not " become easier to detect,

Ok, if the problems are not easier ( or tougher ) to be detected, them the reason why the frequencies of reporting the problems is higher is not because it is easier to find, but because there truly are the problems.

- Strengthen the argument.

Lets go back to " C"

If the numbers of the reports overall is no all due to the mechanical problems, then there must be the other issues contributing to the growth of 50 percent increased, if there must be at least 1% of the overall reports is not mechanical problem. then there must be at least minor chances that it could be caused by the human errors.

regarding the fact that none of the other options could be true, it is actually the best answer.

作者: s-dUSA 时间: 2019-7-25 14:59

Bensontuo 发表于 2019-7-23 17:12
考必要假設,

If " 原文的支持（充分條件發生）保證了原文的結論（必要條件的發生）, then ( 哪個必要假 ...

这个问题当年是我问的，之前的号忘了密码邮箱，直接新注册了一个。

看下上面Sdcar2010的解释，他那个准确。

前提：专家查明去年八月事故非人为，因此从去年八月起开始设置更严苛的机械检查；
结论：该等更严苛机械检查导致从去年起机械报告的问题增加50%。

假设：该等增加非因其他原因（比如机械问题从去年八月起确实上升了50%），而仅仅是因为检查更严苛导致。

我现在看看这个题目，其实当年自己想法没错，第一句话（专家查明去年八月事故非人为）对于做对这道题目，确实没啥用，不过出题人想用第一句话引出这个话题，所以加了，有点尬。

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-7-25 22:11

s-dUSA 发表于 2019-7-25 14:59
这个问题当年是我问的，之前的号忘了密码邮箱，直接新注册了一个。

看下上面Sdcar2010的解释，他那个准确 ...

I agree on the point that your reasoning based on the argument of treating the last sentence as the conclusion is flawless, and I also want to appreciate your attention on my post.

Thank you for also participating in the discussion of this old thread.

Please allow me explain the reason why I treat the first sentence as the main conclusion.

1. I believe that what the argument really be structured is by having the supports of increased samples of one factor, due to the happening of the scenario, to imply the fact that the factor with increased samples must be sufficient enough to exclude " any " possibilities of human errors.

If that's the case, in my humble opinion, as spotting the correct answer of question type of necessary assumption based on the original argument offered, I would like to see if there is answer being negated could manifested the opposite concept of " if it wont be sufficient enough to exclude " any possibilities of human errors ", the increased samples of the factor must not increased as the figure told " which is to say, the increased samples are actually not " account for " all of the increased samples.

If that's the case, they there must be minor possibilities that there are the other factors behind the scenarios and one of them " might be " human errors.

If one of them " might be " human errors, then the conclusions of excluding " human errors " from investigator must be not airtight. -> Refute the conclusion.

Please alway let me know if there is any point that I missed or fail to recognize. Highly appreciate your support.

作者: s-dUSA 时间: 2019-7-26 16:18

Bensontuo 发表于 2019-7-25 22:11
I agree on the point that your reasoning based on the argument of treating the last sentence as th ...

如果把 “从去年八月起开始设置更严苛的机械检查（前提1），该等更严苛机械检查导致从去年起机械报告的问题增加50%（前提2）”作为前提，把”专家认为去年八月事故非人为" 作为结论的话，C项是从前提1推到前提2之间起到”假设“（必要条件）作用，个人感觉C项不构成前提2 与结论之间的必要条件。
这么理解也没有问题，不影响做对这道题目；因为我感觉这道题目其实之考察了”前提1“和”前提2“之间的假设。

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