Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
答案为 e 我选了d . 很难过为什么会错. 但是我看了两遍题 还是不明白为什么选e 请教高手给个指引. 真伤心
A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
Answer:
答案为a 我选了d membership 是人数,怎么可能有关呢? 请高手点拨以二.
真伤心...我发现我越来越傻了
为什么我的贴子中英文单词中间的空格会消失?预览时是好的呀?It's very annoying -- I was forced to edit the post many times simply to add back the spaces. BTW, I'm using Netscape 7. Could somebody help? Thanks in advance!
The one about repairing:
If say, members of group A who do the first-time repair are mostly newbies, and members of group B who do the rework are more experienced, then the author's conclusion would be render false. That's exactly choice A.
明白了谢谢.roboter 你如果用中文解释,对我更容易些
2个题robertchu都说的很清楚了,
27我再补充一下。A 答案的核心在no systematic difference XXX between 1 and 2. 所以difference 后面的东东尽可以随便变。Eg. Difference in experience, in age, in sex, in location, in money, in.. and so on. 对于假设题,反复强调ETS定义:取非削弱。2个题robertchu都说的很清楚了,
27我再补充一下。A 答案的核心在no systematic difference XXX between 1 and 2. 所以difference 后面的东东尽可以随便变。Eg. Difference in experience, in age, in sex, in location, in money, in.. and so on. 对于假设题,反复强调ETS定义:取非削弱。
解释的太好了,谢谢fair_sword和robert
与wcai相同的问题,修理那篇是什么意思?尤其是结论部分,读不懂。请NN解释一下!
A选项取非并不能消弱啊,谁也不知道systematic difference in membership会给两次修理和满意度带来什么影响。哪位nn能解释一下这个选项?
不明白A为什么是假设.就算有systematic difference,如果是first-time jobs比rework jobs的mechanics水平要高,那文中的结论还是可以成立.一个假设如果取非,而结论并不一定受影响,那该假设就不是必要的.
顶一下,哪位nn能解答一下?
27.A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
问一个细节:there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require (整理是不是少了一个and)that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs
如果不是,那这句话的成分是怎么划分的?谢谢律师
我也读了很多遍,觉得这里两个that都是修饰concentration的。
关于这两题,我有不同的思路:
这两题有一个很大很大的共同点:结论都是,某某类的人在主观上怎样怎样云。
所以假设的正确答案是:这些人应该具备主观上怎样怎样的可能性,就是从客观上提供他们有主观发挥作用的可能。
请问lawyer可以用两个that从句并列修饰level吗, 而且中间不用加and吗?
(这个问题是不是该贴到语法区去呀, 如果贴错了请斑竹帮我移过去)
已經在語法區出現了~~
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=59488&page=2
LAWYER翻译的没问题,但是那两个THAT是修饰concentration的吧。前面的THAT在定语从句中做宾语,后面的THAT做定从的主语。
A:取非,削弱结论 it is not because the mechanics lack competence
B:有没有公司竞争得过AR,无关
C:与原文信息相悖
D;惩罚不惩罚,感觉不出来有什么关系啊
E:取非,与原文compatible
there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
对于这一句话,我还是不很明白:that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first time jobs. 是什么意思啊?
elicited 是什么意思啊?引出?
……被引出来,更多的是通过在此的工作,而不是在第一次修的时候就被引出来。
放到题里面,再认真看看大家的讨论: )
A:取非,削弱结论 it is not because the mechanics lack competence
B:有没有公司竞争得过AR,无关
C:与原文信息相悖
D;惩罚不惩罚,感觉不出来有什么关系啊
E:取非,与原文compatible
同感.
刚才看了lawyer 的解释才明白的
作题的时候看的一头雾水...
E is saying that there IS a group of people that can finish complex jobs in One time without rework--->contradict to the original message:
"there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs." --says because works are so complex that it is more reliable to do it again!! therefore in A--saying that both 1st time and 2nd time workers are no different in skills makes sense
message me if you still can't get it
对D取非,如果AG有惩罚措施,那第一次修的哥们儿不郁闷死了,他们肯定不干!这不是取非削弱吗?
对D取非,如果AG有惩罚措施,那第一次修的哥们儿不郁闷死了,他们肯定不干!这不是取非削弱吗?
这样就加入了太多的个人推理了~
文章的结论排除了工人是导致满意度差别的原因,而是BALABALA的原因(那个句子太长了),对D取非,即公司有惩罚工人的措施,这个与结论是否由工人导致两次修理的满意度差别无关.
修理篇:原推理提到 When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence,
将选项取非,如rober所说,‘If say, members of group A who do the first-time repair are mostly newbies, and members of group B who do the rework are more experienced, then the author's conclusion would be render false. ’这就反对了原结论。
大概其,好像明白了,可是对题目的用词的含义又好像不是太明白
能不能来位NN帮忙把全文翻译一下呀???
谢谢!!!!!
再来请求翻译!
谢谢!!
已經在語法區出現了~~
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=59488&page=2
人才輩出的CD,人才輩出的chinese....
A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
Answer:
答案为a
偶想知道最后一句话是什么意思,两个that 各自是修饰哪个的,
这个重修工作不是因为技艺,难道是因为态度不好,第一次修的不认真,所以没有修好吗?
能给讲讲这一题吗?很是困惑,谢谢。。。
A取非, 若两次修理有差别,则weaken原文的结论:"therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence"
我觉得2个that都是修饰concentration的
rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
复杂的修理工作所需要的专心的程度,这种专心、专注更大程度上依赖于返工而不是第一遍-----返工的时候做得比第一遍认真得多。
是认真的程度,不是能力
原文结论:返工不是因为能力差,而是因为人们更认真了,因为第二遍人们功能投入精力,更专心。
我的理解是A:取非,干这些活的不是同一批人,说不定返工时和第一遍一样不认真。 削弱结论。
而且比较前后两次的工作态度--认真不认真,暗含的意思就是比较相同的一波人吧,不会说我的二次比你第一次认真吧??
冒险问一句:什么叫取非,具体怎么操作?
真是好题啊! 读了43,44 楼 lucccky328 的解释,总算大致明白了这题的意思,并综合以上各位的解释,我的理解如下:
原文:总有大量复杂的修理是要返工的。返工的工作总是让人满意的。因而,第一遍没完全修好,不是因为维修人员能力不行;而是因为认真的程度,因为返工要求的认真的程度比第一遍时高。 (Lawyer 的解释为:而是要求的侧重点不同,二修要求高点。)
以上结论基于以下假设:
A:
请教:“a level of focused concentration“是解释成”侧重点“还是”认真程度“?请NN,斑竹出来确认下,先谢谢了!
这题可真....
最难的阅读都在CR里, 看了楼上两位的我才明白这题的意思
听君一席话,胜做cr壹千题
个人看到大家众说纷纭此题的翻译,我想提出个人意见:
争论点:rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs. 前面说的是:返工后修的满意度高并不是工人的能力上的差别,而是说:再次修的时候,工人们可以对于复杂的维修工作更有针对性——即返修时所剩余的更focused的问题更加有可能让工人们展现自己的手艺。
比如说:你手上有100个问题有待解决,你于是painstakingly一个一个的全解决了,但是因为问题太多工作量大,难免疏漏与不足;于是你的一个小晚辈在你的基础上继续解决问题,把你的不足都有针对性地解决了,他花的时间,工作量可能都一样但是最后做出来的最终结果就是比你好,难道你能说这个后生就一定能力比你强么?NO,只是他所处理的问题更加有针对性,不需要面面俱到。好比编程序,你把大结构上的漏洞补上了,运行效率N^n, 你的小后辈把排序算法一改立即变成nlongN,但是他还不一定知道大程序的算法怎么编呢,你能说这俩人能力一样么?
E There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.
E为什么不对呢?我还是不明白啊,如果对E取非,就是存在某一种的repair jobs 可以达到first-time jobs satisfactorily.,那么不也会削弱原文的“it is not because the mechanics lack competence"??
求助ing~~~~
A:取非,削弱结论 it is not because the mechanics lack competence
B:有没有公司竞争得过AR,无关
C:与原文信息相悖
D;惩罚不惩罚,感觉不出来有什么关系啊
E:取非,与原文compatible
还是不懂,我觉得AD都对啊!
对D取非,得到;
AR将对需要进行返工工作的首次维修人员进行处罚---->>首次维修人员不会消极怠工,只会是能力有差别 ( 直接削弱结论,不就是正解么? )
还有如果对Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs. 这样的话取非呢?是前半句加not,还是后半句去掉not?还是兼而有之?
NN,help!!!!!!!
我认为这道题目排出了技术的差异,那么就是态度问题。为不存在其他原因。
菜鸟理解:
A,个人认为是:这两组人没有能力的区别(membership:资格),
对A取非,有能力的区别.那么就否定结论:不是因为能力的问题.
这道题选A没错,但感觉不是向前辈说的那样对A取非削弱了“When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence”
原文的意思是第一次修inadequate,但不是因为lack competence, 而是因为没有focused concentration,focused concentration只有在重复修的时候才有。所以这里有个明显的假设就是第一次修的人和重复修的人是一批人。对A取非,即,第一次修和第二次修是两批人,那么对于重复修的那批人,他们也是第一次接触,所以也没有focused concentration,重复修没有达到目的。
再重申:重复修的目的是:focused concentration
谢谢
觉得逻辑题目出错很大程度因为题目的不理解。
看了那个语法区的讨论 豁然开朗
看了大家的讨论,很有收获。我开始也错误的选D了,现在基本能想通了:
把D进行取非实际上是对结论有削弱作用的,不能说完全无关。但为什么不选D而选A? 首先A和题目联系更紧密;其次,比较把A取非和把D取非的效果,肯定是把A取非对结论削弱效果更强。在假设题中,not+weaken(取非削弱)的答案类型中,要weaken效果最强的那个。
所以A才是假设,而D可以说是个加强。
做assumption题的时候再看结论时一般会常常看到下面几个字:
1,is/are
如果结论中出现is/are,答案很大可能是搭桥
2,increase,或比较级
如果结论中出现increase或比较级,答案很大可能含有有两个什么什么样的东西不变,no difference,或not increase/decrease等词的选项。
3,result,或cause
如果结论中出现result,或cause,答案很有可能是含有not caused, no other way, no possibility等词的选项。
做weaken题时,如果题目是为了解决某个问题,提出一个方案,to/in order to solve/increase/promote, sb proposed that...,答案一般是这个解决方案有缺点或政策执行不下去或忽略了其它方面的可能问题。
做weaken题时,如果题目是为了解决某一方案,"必须"做什么什么,to solve this problem, we MUST/HAVE TO/HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN,答案往往是一个比较好的替代方案。
做weaken题时,如果题目是通过某个现象得出某个假设或hypothesis,答案可能是举一个相反的例子或现象,比如火山爆发,天冷了,结论火山导致天冷,weaken就是在某个鸟不拉思的地方火山爆发,天热嗒
做weaken题时,如果题目是通过某个现象得出一个(原因)结论,答案可能是这个现象其实是另一个原因引起的,比如医院开A药多,结论A药是最有效的同类药,答案就是开A药是因为A药便宜导致的。
做weaken题时,如果题目中是“bla bla,,,, ,therefore/thus”或“since/because....,....”或“as a result,...”答案一般是这个推理过程有问题,忽略了一些没有想到的缺点或可能问题。
如果是support,我自己觉得答案常有三种情况:
1、对原结论换个办法再重述一遍
2、结论是A-->B,答案是非B-->非A
3。其它的evidence支持这个结论的
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |