ChaseDream

标题: GWD-23-Q32 [打印本页]

作者: ike982003 时间: 2011-4-21 17:03
标题: GWD-23-Q32
Excavations of the Roman city of Sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species:a hare, a partridge, and various Mediterranean fish.Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created.Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities, however, the mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire
.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The Sepphoris mosaics are not composed exclusively of types of stones found naturally in the Sepphoris area.（石头和m上描绘的生物无关）
There is no single region to which all the species depicted in the Sepphoris mosaics are native.（取非，有一个地方那些生物都是当地的，加强原文）
No motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.（取非，有种出现在S的m没有在其他地方出现过，削弱原文）
All of the animal figures in the Sepphoris mosaics are readily identifiable as representations of known species.（无关）
There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar.（取非，有一种cr的m很多artisans都很熟悉，加强原文）

谁能帮我看看我的思路是不是有严重的问题，GWD的assumption错得一塌糊涂，心都碎了= =

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-4-22 00:43
Premise1: Most of the species represented did not live in the Sepphoris region when these mosaics were created
premise2: Identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other Roman cities

Conclusion: The mosaics of Sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the Roman Empire.

Necessary assumption, use negation.

If you negate E, you get: There was a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the Roman Empire were familiar. If this is true, then those artisans do not need to travel from city to city in order to learn the common designs. Therefore, the argument falls apart. So E is necessary for the argument to hold.

作者: amethyst9064 时间: 2011-5-31 13:51
Your explanation to is very convincing. But would you mind to explain C as well? I'd truly appreciate your help!

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-5-31 23:23
If you negate C, you get:
Some motifs appear in the Sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other Roman city.
If this is the case, some = 1 or 100 out of 100 possibilities. As such, the conclusion of the argument still holds since some of the motifs in S might still be found in other Roman cities.

作者: ruirui_hsu 时间: 2011-6-26 22:06
C 可以这样理解么？
C is out of scope, because the original text talks about the same mortif found in other citys. The mortif not appeared in other citys is irrelevent.

作者: spoon0212 时间: 2013-6-23 11:24

ruirui_hsu 发表于 2011-6-26 22:06
C 可以这样理解么？ C is out of scope, because the original text talks about the same mortif found in ...

我觉得你说的是对的

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