ChaseDream

标题: OG12 89 男朋友题 [打印本页]

作者: tintinc 时间: 2011-3-13 02:02
标题: OG12 89 男朋友题
89. Since it has become known that several of a bank’s top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank’s depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank’s financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The fi rst describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the
explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The fi rst describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

提问：D为什么不对？OG的解释是the second statement is not itself offered as an explanation of why there bank executives are investing in the bank; if it were, that would mean that the bank executives are doing os because corporate executives are know to do such things in a calculated effort to dispel worries.
excutives不就是为了dispel worries才这么干的么？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-13 02:57
Why do you think the first BF is an intermediate conclusion?

作者: tintinc 时间: 2011-3-13 08:06
不好意思又乌龙了。别人的题目直接复制过来了，OG12上的选项是编辑过后的。麻烦sdcar大大再看一下了

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-13 11:20
The conclusion of the argument is : those worrisome rumors might NOT be false. The second BF is the ground to establish such a conclusion.

But the second BF itself is not an explanation the author wants to establish.

作者: tintinc 时间: 2011-3-13 22:37
But my question is why D cannot be an answer.

I choose D because BF2 helps to explain the conclusion:"those worrisome rumors might NOT be false", and BF1 is the circumstance/fact/evidence that the argument seeks to explain.

作者: cycyang 时间: 2011-3-13 23:07
if it were, that would mean that the bank executives are doing os because corporate executives are known to do such things in a calculated effort to dispel worries.

First, I think it should be "known" here instead of "know".

Then it could be translated to "如果前面的假设是真的，那么我们可以得出结论：人们知道这些企业高管是为了打消大家的顾虑而买本公司的股份"，而这个结论我们在题干中找不到，也推断不出。

作者: tintinc 时间: 2011-3-13 23:34

if it were, that would mean that the bank executives are doing os because corporate executives are known to do such things in a calculated effort to dispel worries.

First, I think it should be "known" here instead of "know".

Then it could be translated to "如果前面的假设是真的，那么我们可以得出结论：人们知道这些企业高管是为了打消大家的顾虑而买本公司的股份"，而这个结论我们在题干中找不到，也推断不出。

-- by 会员 cycyang (2011/3/13 23:07:00)

It's the OG explanation. Thanks for pointing out my typos.

我的想法是：
Conclusion: that those worrisome rumors(facing impending financial collapse) must be false is overoptimistic
BF2中in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health解释了上述的conclusion

once again, dispel negative rumors难道这不是executives bought shares的原因吗？

作者: cycyang 时间: 2011-3-13 23:51
...corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.

Here we should attach emphasis on the word "sometimes". It is only one possibility that they buy the shares to dispel negative rumors, which is not confirming to prove that "those rumors must be false" or "they might well be overoptimistic to draw the conclusion".

In my opinion, there could be more than one conclusion in the argument. I also agree that for the whole paragraph, the conclusion should be "that those worrisome rumors(facing impending financial collapse) must be false is overoptimistic".

作者: 小唯唯 时间: 2011-3-14 09:11
躲在后面偷偷看着

作者: tintinc 时间: 2011-3-14 20:21

...corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.

Here we should attach emphasis on the word "sometimes". It is only one possibility that they buy the shares to dispel negative rumors, which is not confirming to prove that "those rumors must be false" or "they might well be overoptimistic to draw the conclusion".

In my opinion, there could be more than one conclusion in the argument. I also agree that for the whole paragraph, the conclusion should be "that those worrisome rumors(facing impending financial collapse) must be false is overoptimistic".

-- by 会员 cycyang (2011/3/13 23:51:42)

Thank you cycyang! I kinda understand... bf2 is just one of those possible explanations, while choosing D means it's the ONLY reason for the executives to buy the shares, isn't it?

作者: xibao 时间: 2011-4-4 03:55
我觉得这个题的conclusion1是 those worrisome rumors must be false。
这之前说的那些都是在support这个conclusion1

而之后，however一转折，就是question这个conclusion1, 出来了另一个观点：such reasoning might well be overoptimistic.。

既然出现however这个强烈转折，而且BF1和BF2在however的两边，那么选项里也应该选相反的。A.

D选项都是一致的。 BF2只是解释了those rumors might be overoptimistic, 并没有解释高管为什么会买自己股票。

作者: jy4780163 时间: 2011-4-4 21:17
最后黑体字前面的since 是不是since 后面一般带的都不是结论~谢谢大N 解答~

作者: mia113 时间: 2011-8-20 21:54
强烈同意10楼观点··

作者: MissUindeed 时间: 2013-6-29 19:18
赞了赞了

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