ChaseDream

标题: 求nn帮忙理解下这题,答案并不能让人信服,求反驳 [打印本页]

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-2 14:07
标题: 求nn帮忙理解下这题,答案并不能让人信服,求反驳
10. In order topressure the government of Country S to become less repressive, somelegislators in Country R want to ban all exports from R to S. Companies in Rthat manufacture telecommunication equipment such as telephones and faxmachines have argued that exports of their products should be exempted from theban, on the ground that it is impossible for a country to remain repressivewhen telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of thatcountry.

Which one of thefollowing is an assumption on which the argument given by the manufacturersdepends?

(A) The governmentof S has recently increased the amount of telecommunication equipment it allowsto be imported into the country.

(B) Thetelecommunication equipment that would be imported into S if the exemption wereto be granted would not be available solely to top development officials in S.

(C) A majority ofthe members of R’s legislature do not favor exempting telecommunicationequipment from the ban on exports to Country S.

(D) Of all exportsthat could be sent to Country S, telecommunication equipment would be the mosteffective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government.

(E) Withoutpressure from Country R, the government of S would be able to continuerepressing its citizens indefinitely.

答案是B,我选的D

有人说用取非法选出B来的,可是我觉得B并不能比D更有效的作为assumption.

B"not be available solely to top development officials in S."只是在简单重复题目里面的"widely available to the population of that country."并不是什么assumption. 我理解assumption不是简单重复原题里面的信息,换句话说,题目里面都已经assume了,你还跟着再assume一遍干嘛?? 而且,关键是在于他没有指出widely available 又如何?"not be available solely to top development officials in S."又能把他们政府怎么样? 举个最简单的例子,大米麻油可以widely available可是能动摇暴政吗?不能啊. 按常识判断没有这个功能.只有这样一个assumption:大米麻油只要widely available,就可以有效的动摇暴政,这样才能推出来.那你应该告诉我你assume大米麻油是个多么厉害的暴政杀手.

我们看D"would be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government."D强调了有效性,那么,有效性+widely available那才是暴政杀手.

搞不清为什么D不对..求NN点醒我

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-2 14:33
I chose D too.. haha, but I kind of understand what's going on.

D is a little bit out of the scope. Since there are only two points mentioned by the telecommunication companies. 1. telecommuunicaiton products should be exempted. 2. once telecommunication products become exception, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country. However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

B. mentions something which must happen first or 2. (from the above) would be not true. Therefore, it becomes the assumption in the case, in order to make sure "widely available to the population" would happen.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-2 15:43
欢迎讨论!

我解题的时候想象了这么一个场景:manufacturer去argue: My products should be exempted from the ban! 然后只说了一条理由:it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country. 然后小布什一听就欣然同意了! 问小布什基于什么样的常识判断的,还需要另外什么共识,这个manufacturer才敢在小布什面前以此为唯一理由argue.

明显,这里应该是2个条件加一起才能成为充要条件也就是 A+B =>C (AC已知,B为常识)

情景应该是这样, manufacturer和小布什或者所有人的脑海里面都有一个相同的常识,再加上 widely available这个条件,2个联合,让这个manufacturers敢这么嚣张的argue. 小布什对他argue买不买账,也是基于他现在的说法A,和他以前的常识B, 至于manufacturer今后怎么会做,会怎么卖,都不会对他当下所持的argument valid不valid有任何影响

他现在是夸海口了还是怎么着,以后是准备"available solely to top development officials in S. " 呢? 还是 " available NOT solely to top development officials in S. "呢? 那都是以后的事情. 和他现在敢不敢说大话,说出来谁信无关.,与小布什当下怎么评判他的argument无关. 起码他现在这个argue谁也不能说的不对,谁也不敢说他扯蛋. 那必然,大家对telecommunication equipment的效力都是认可的. 那么这种认可度,应该就是assumption!

就像我说的,我说大米麻油能征服暴政,你说你不信,假若我保证:我能让他们人人都用上大米麻油,你会觉,so what?你脑子有毛病! 然后我像(B)选项一样说: 我真的能保证,我一定能保证! 你一定会更无语...
但是假若在另外某个星系的人的常识是大米麻油是非常有杀伤力的东西,即(D)选项内容,那他们一定觉得我说的对,只要人人能用上效果一定不同凡响,绝对不是在扯蛋. 至于以后发生什么,我能不能说话算话和我现在这个argument无关

选b的唯一的可能性是: 如果题目问的是,基于现在给定条件A=>C,以后必须怎么样? 那我肯定选B,"保证能完成A"--也就是ls说的

something which must happen first or 2. (from the above) would be not true.

不知道说清楚了没有,欢迎拍砖

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-2 16:15

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

it's not necessarily to be the most effective ones, or the only way, the passage didn't mention that, so it's irrelevant. it works as long as it 's effective, ( See, effectiveness plays such a critical role here.) just as I can have either 2 bowls of rice or 2 slices of pizza to get full. me and my stomach mutually agree with that.

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-2 16:45

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

But choice D mentions it. Choice D is more likely to strengthen the argument, rather than to be an assumtion of it.

As you said, "it works as long as it 's effective". Therefore, how effective is not an issue here. The issue is assumtion= what did the companies think before they had the conlcusion- those products will really help the people over there when widely available.-?????
The must think that "those people in country S will get their product", which has the same meaning as choice B.

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-2 16:58
It has nothing to do with "保证", the companies did not use the assumption to convince somebody. They had the assumption first, then they got their conclusion.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-2 19:05
a=>b a是b的前提,有a才有b,a保证b,

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-2 20:00

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

-- by 会员 littlexian (2011/4/2 16:45:21)

that's not what i meant.

you said D is strengthen the argument, I agree. All assumptions strength the argument by explaining whatever the reason behind it. Don't you agree?

How about B then? It doesn't even strengthen the argument directly, rather only strengthens the premise of the argument: In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country" the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S", and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective, if not the most effective one.

The way to solve "assumption type question "is by filling the gap, building a connection, not by generating anther premise of a premise or concluding the conclusion. in this case the gap here is clearly the "effectiveness" , but what degree of the effectiveness, high or low or medium we don't care. you can argue tanks or nuclear bombs are more effective but I'd say brain-wash, that was what I meant by "irrelevant"

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-2 21:55
Use negation method since this is a necessary assumption question.

If you negate B, you have: The telecommunication equipment that would be imported into S, if the exemption were to be granted, would be available solely to top development officials in S. If so, when the exemption is granted, ordinary people won't get access to cell phones. The country would still be repressive. Thus, the whole argument falls apart. B is the correct answer.

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-3 03:54

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

-- by 会员 littlexian (2011/4/2 16:45:21)

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 20:00:37)

Well, how assumption works is that it links the premise and conlcusion. Just as you say "filling the gap", also just as NN sdcar2010 say without assumption"whole argument falls apart". An assumption does not strengthen anything, it makes the whole argument work. I wish I could point out the premise and conclusion here, and use the way NN sdcar2010 did to show how it works, by putting the sentences "in the gap". But it really is not my type to do CR, I always get confused by which is premise and which is conclusion, ha....T_T Hope any NN can help me to do it. I appreciate it!

Let's clear it out. You think the gap here is "effectiveness". And you do not care "what degree the effectiveness is", so it makes choice D out directly, because the point D focuses on is "the degree of effectiveness". Please pointing out if there is anything wrong at this part.

"In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country" the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S", and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective."
I dont get it here. Why is it still based on the equipment is effective?

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive"

Once available -> works(effective) Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue". Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available? That's why choice B is the assumption.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 10:09

Let's clear it out. You think the gap here is "effectiveness". And you do not care "what degree the effectiveness is", so it makes choice D out directly, because the point D focuses on is "the degree of effectiveness". Please pointing out if there is anything wrong at this part.

I do think the gap here is the "effectiveness" that's why you have to mention how effective it is. that's what D istalking about.
My" I don't care how effective it is" was ONLY replying your "this equipment perhaps is not THE most effective one, tanks or guns can do more dmg", it's a 题外话has nothing to do w/ the question.

My point is you GOTTA mention "effectiveness" here, in order to make it work, but whether is it the most or not is out the scope. It's pointless to argue that.
As I said 大米麻油 can be widely available, but can they change anything at all? Clearly NO. why? Because they are not useful, unless you can establish an argument like D to point out the effectiveness of 大米麻油. Simply by answering how you would make it happen, as B does, won't make it work. I'd ask you "SO WHAT? would they work at all? I don't think they will. You wish!" because here our assumptions are different. yours is 大米麻油 is effective, mine is they are not.

"In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country" the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S", and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective."
I dont get it here. Why is it still based on the equipment is effective?

As I said above, your assumption of this argument is based on it's effectiveness. Let's put it this way, will you say that if you don't believe (assume) this is gonna be useful? If your answer is NO, then your assumption MUST BE effectiveness is key point. Without that assumption, any company 大米厂麻油厂,etc., can argue any of there products SHOULD NOT BE BANNED, because if they are wildly available they will destroy S government.

Once available -> works(effective) Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue".

once available -> works(HOW DO I KNOW? ) the question itself didn't mention nor B.

"how effective" is included in "available issue" Bingo! I don't see it literally. Any one see it? That's meaning underlying it, something that's called assumption.

Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available? That's why choice B is the assumption.

Will they be available? How you will make them available? It's the question of future. I don't care. It has nothing to do with how I am establishing my argument at this very moment. At this moment all I care is if I'm being a crazy guy fantasying something unrealistic, or being a reasonable man arguing something valid.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 10:47

Use negation method since this is a necessary assumption question.

If you negate B, you have: The telecommunication equipment that would be imported into S, if the exemption were to be granted, would be available solely to top development officials in S. If so, when the exemption is granted, ordinary people won't get access to cell phones. The country would still be repressive. Thus, the whole argument falls apart. B is the correct answer.

It's like I have an equation: A=>B, you say it's not correct only because somehow A isn't achievable, so A=/=>b. I think that's a weak argument.
The only correct way to demonstrate is by showing A needs something else to get to B, A can not get to B by itself! so anther factor, another prerequisite, needs to be inserted. A+C=>B

Let's see what if you negate D, you would get "telecommunication equipment is not the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government." then, the manufacturer has no ground to argue not get banned. This way shows the the absence of "effectiveness", namely C, causes A+C=>B fail, because A can not achieve B alone. C is the GAP here.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 11:18
A=>B

I agree if you can't have A then you'd never get to B, but that's only the consequence of not having A.

can you reject the logic truth of this deductive reasoning by discussing the existence of A? That would be ridiculous...

The way to refute A=>B is to show A needs C=>B. The truth is establish, the false is revealed, whether you have A or C has nothing to do with the logic truth.

Einstein doesn't care if human being can reach the speed of light. but his theory is not wrong, or maybe it is wrong, who knows, "/shrug", but I DO know at least I can't refute his theory by stating nothing can reach the speed of light

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-3 11:28
A necessary assumption for an arugment might not be sufficient enough to enable the same argument.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 11:52

A necessary assumption for an arugment might not be sufficient enough to enable the same argument.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/3 11:28:57)

interesting.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 11:57
虽然理由不能让人信服,起码了解了一些GMAC的手法.应试呗

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-3 12:50

Once available -> works(effective) Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue".

Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available? That's why choice B is the assumption.

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/3 10:09:31)

"My point is you GOTTA mention "effectiveness" here, in order to make it work, but whether is it the most or not is out the scope. It's pointless to argue that."

"(D) Of all exports that could be sent to Country S, telecommunication equipment would be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government." Tell me here that the choice D IS NOT ABOUT the effective level.

"on the ground that it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." It is the most important part of the whole passage, please read it again.

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Please translate this into Chinese and rethink about the meaning of this sentence.

"once available -> works(HOW DO I KNOW? ) the question itself didn't mention nor B". Read, please.

"Will they be available? How you will make them available? It's the question of future. I don't care" The whole "I don't care" just clearly says you miss the key point of this passage. You misunderstand it.

"SO WHAT? would they work at all? I don't think they will. You wish!", Yes, you definitely can WEAKEN the companies' argument by that. In other words, let me say it again, Choice D is more a way to strengthen the argument.

A point to strengthen an argument, it makes the argument more convincing. <<-- this is where you are talking about all the time.

A point to be an assumption of an argument, it links the premise and the conclusion and makes the whole argument works. NOTE!!!! the "works" here has nothing to do with the result of the argument( true or false, able to convince people or not), the argument works so IT CAN BECOME AN ARGUMENT, NOT IT WILL BECOME A TRUTH. sdcar2010 already have an example above.

You may wanna do some research about premise, assumption and conclusion, and how these three form an argument.

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 14:12
wow, easy...don't get mad, I'm very slow

effectiveness 是必要条件,绝不是什么锦上添花的strengthen. 诚然必要条件必然strengthen,但不是所有strengthen都是必要条件.

D有2层含义,不光光是谈degree:1)是effective, 2)是不仅是effective而且还是most的, 所以不能只看见2)而看不见1) .我的意思是我只需要1)这个条件就够了,当然有2)则更好,也是你说的strengthen,2)就是所谓的锦上添花的东西,多多益善,恨不得有3有4呢.但是不管后面还有几千几万条,第一条是绝对不能少的,就是effective.

once...翻译成中文就是只要就,只要成立即怎么怎么样...
可是这个题目本来就已经是告诉你A=>B了, B)选项无非就是重复了一遍,只要有A=>B,只要没A就=/=>B,而已.

也就是我上面说的

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 14:48

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive"

B无非就是把:
It is impossible for a country to remain repressive WHEN telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.
改成
It is impossible for a country to remain repressive ONCE telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.

就变成assumption了? 你又把我绕进去了

如果是这样的话我真理解不了,我死记吧....

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-3 15:08

wow, easy...don't get mad, I'm very slow

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/3 14:12:39)

Oh~ I'm not mad, just try to use clear way to cut through the problem here.

I understand what you are saying. Effective could be an assumption in a similar question, however, not in this one.
Let's say, if the passage is-> "It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is used." so "telecommunication equipment should be exempted from the ban" Then, the assumption could be effective issue.

However, the point here is "when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country", then the assumption becomes something like choice B. That 's why I repeated "read agian please", without this sentence, the answer could be really different.

Just as I said before, distinguish premise, assumption and conlusion first then do the problem really isnt my type, so I can not use this way to explain the problem here. However, I believe understanding how assumption works will really help to clear the problem here. That's why I said you may need to do some research on it.

Sorry for letting you feel I'm mad. : (

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 15:16
hehe it's all good

作者: littlexian 时间: 2011-4-3 15:23

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/3 14:48:49)

No No. I did this way just tried to explain the "when" is like "once". All of the three sentences I put in line above are the same.
translate to Chinese is, like you said, "只要成立即怎么怎么样". That's why I said effective is included in available issue.
Because it only said "只要 available, 即 the country would not be able to continue repressing".
"只要 available" is the only thing those companies think about. They did not think about how(at least it appears like this here). Since "只要 available" is the only issue, the assumption should be somthing relate to it.

作者: Joseph_lin 时间: 2011-4-3 16:20
发表下个人的看法，本体的前提telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of thatcountry可以让S国不remain repressive，结论是telecommunication equipment 不该被禁止。D选项中有说telecommunication equipment 在所有的出口产品中让S国不remain repressive是最有效的，但是文中说IMPOSSIBLE TO REMAIN REPRESSIVE,即有效的衡量标准是100%，但是如果出口的产品中其他产品的有效程度都小于10%，但telecommunication equipment的有效程度是10%，虽然这个telecommunication equipment确实是所有出口产品中最有效的，但是还是不能说明能让S过IMPOSSIBLE TO REMAIN REPRESSIVE,因为要达到IMPOSSIBLE TO REMAIN REPRESSIVE的有效程度应该要为100%，所以D并不正确。所以D或许可以做一个支持的条件，但是不能做一个假设的条件（必要的条件），这也是我说的我现在做假设题遇到的一个问题，那就是有的时候会去选一个支持的答案，而假设题要求我们选择的是一个必要条件。

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 18:08
你的说意思我大概看明白了,你说的10%, 意思是,只是相对而言比较有效,其实作用不大. 对吧.

但是,其实最有效的就是100%的, 如果你知道benchmark的话就应该懂的. 其他的东西的有效性都应该参照都最有效的比例的讨论. 貌似讨论这个和题目无关...

如果总的有效量要100%, 就算100%普及x0%的效果=0的总效果,也没用,除非你默认他的效果是100%,那么这个默认是不是就是假设呢? B没有讨论而D讨论了

D说最有效果,那么就算你说的可能只有10%的效果, 但是题目里面说了it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, 别说10%就算只有0.000001%只要我有他说的这条,我就敢argue了, 因为这玩意起码是有效的,而且还最有效的.

我觉得我们的争论到现在,我纠结于说话的人说话的时候有没有一个完美的逻辑, 他说的话背后有没有理论的支持,他敢不敢这么说.至于话说了以后是个什么情况他管不着.就像爱婴斯坦只要在他的体系内表述严谨滴水不漏,你们能不能造出超越光速的机器他也不管 (汗,,我不是自比大师...不敢) 而ls诸位还有出题的人,主要是看最终结果.S国最终的结局.

可能是方向不一样吧

作者: powers 时间: 2011-4-3 18:13
我的一直以来的目标是让这个公司怎么有效的说服政府,让政府不要ban他,而题目考的是怎么才能制止暴政. 方向偏了

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