ChaseDream

标题: 陈向东逻辑一题~ [打印本页]

作者: clumsy123 时间: 2011-4-17 18:41
标题: 陈向东逻辑一题~
in the country of Laurelia, legal restrictions on the sale of lock-picking equipment were relaxed ten years ago, and since then Laurelia's burglary rate has risen dramatically. Hence, since legally purchased lock-picking equipment was used in most burglaries, reintroducing strict limits on the sale of this equipment would help to reduce Laurelia's burglary rate.

which of the following,if true, gives the strongest support to the argument?

D. most lock-picking equipment used in Laurelia is fragile and usually breaks irreparably within a few years of purchase.

能不能解释为啥D选项能加强原结论啊？我怎么觉得没啥关系？？、

作者: qidandan1103 时间: 2011-4-17 19:02
楼主注意Hence后面的话，逻辑链是：因为A:lock-picking equipment 用于盗窃中，所以B:要再引入restriction。这个A到B的逻辑没有关联，所以正确答案应加强这种关联，即：因为lock-picking equipment 很脆弱很容易坏（则易于被盗）所以要再引入restriction。
鄙人之见~！

作者: clumsy123 时间: 2011-4-17 19:35

楼主注意Hence后面的话，逻辑链是：因为A:lock-picking equipment 用于盗窃中，所以B:要再引入restriction。这个A到B的逻辑没有关联，所以正确答案应加强这种关联，即：因为lock-picking equipment 很脆弱很容易坏（则易于被盗）所以要再引入restriction。
鄙人之见~！

-- by 会员 qidandan1103 (2011/4/17 19:02:24)

lock-picking是开锁的意思，小偷用这些开锁工具盗窃，如果这些工具容易坏的话，怎么能加强呢？要是硬说的话，我反而觉得是削弱额~~~

作者: clumsy123 时间: 2011-4-17 20:18
有米有其他人帮忙看看？

作者: carmenzjw 时间: 2011-4-18 14:36
我也觉得有点奇怪，楼主可以贴上其他答案吗。我觉得这个D选项像是它不设restriction的前提

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-18 21:16
Correlation and causation.

The logic of the stimulus is that loosening restriction caused more equipments in the hands of people, and more equipements in the hands of people cause more thefts. Thus, restricting the sale of the equipment would reduce the number of thefts.

What if the same equipment can be used over and over again? Then every thieve could have the perfect tool already and the restriction would not be able to reduce the crime rate. D removes this possibility, thus, strengthens the argument.

作者: clumsy123 时间: 2011-4-18 21:26

Correlation and causation.

The logic of the stimulus is that loosing restriction caused more equipments in the hands of people, and more equipements in the hands of people cause more thefts. Thus, restricting the sale of the equipment would reduce the number of thefts.

What if the same equipment can be used over and over again? Then every thieve could have the perfect tool already and the restriction would not be able to reduce the crime rate. D removes this possibility, thus, strengthen the argument.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/18 21:16:14)

恩，明白了，谢谢！

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