Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?
没有思路，E可以吗？
but the referent key is B? Nevertheless, I prefer E.
Further comments appreciated....
C 好象还是有一点怪怪的
去反问消息来源的出处.....
还是请NN多多讨论啰
我以为是E 如果他之前已经很多次都放话要竞选 但是又都没有实现 表示此人只会放风声说大话 参选可信度不高
I think B will be correct if the question says that he did not submit the list.
I prefer E in this case.
I chose E
B的回答是无关的！回答YES，不能说他递交就是为了选举，可能是因为别的事情，是充分条件与必要条件之间的关系。
但E的回答却可以对文章进行直接的加强或者削弱。
个人意见！
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
E,无法解决划线中的2个问题。如果选举根本不要提交这个东东。那么过去是否B提交过没有什么关系。
但是B，就不一样，回答yes, 很有可能B要选举.very likely(文章的可能性正是表明了非充分性）.. 回答no，可能性不大。如果原文没有very likely，B就错。
又想了一下。如果选E, 那么对E分别正，反回答的结果就很让人费解，
原文说，but he has never run.
E,正向回答yes. 他以前登记了，but he has never run. 。 推出登记和选举没有什么关系。因为他never
反yes,没有登记。没有选举>>>登记了，可能选举，好像不是逆否命题.吧(非A>>非B, A>>B, 如果是B>>>A,就对了)。不好意思，刚起来，还不是很清楚
请NN指点！
up
Since you mentioned required condition and sufficient condition, we start there. Filing is apparently a sufficient condition based on the question. Answer to B will help find out whether it is also a required condition. However, whether it is required is not relevant. Just make up an example:
Tom bought flight ticket from Baffalo to NYC. We think he is going to NYC. However, buying flight ticket is not a required condition. He can buy train ticket or just get a rental car. It is a sufficient condition but adequate to evaluate whether he is going. Whether it is required does not lend any help to this evaluation.
Since you mentioned required condition and sufficient condition, we start there. Filing is apparently a sufficient condition based on the question. Answer to B will help find out whether it is also a required condition. However, whether it is required is not relevant. Just make up an example:
Tom bought flight ticket from Baffalo to NYC. We think he is going to NYC. However, buying flight ticket is not a required condition. He can buy train ticket or just get a rental car. It is a sufficient condition but adequate to evaluate whether he is going. Whether it is required does not lend any help to this evaluation.
非常谢谢mindfree, E对
如果B是Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election ，那我觉得就对了，
同样，上面的例子，如果 flight ticket is the only way, 也对。
是吗？mindfree,
如果B是Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election ，那我觉得就对了，
fair_sword,再看看B选项,Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
我觉得你14日的分析是对的.
对B的肯定回答加强结论,因为是only way
对B的否定回答削弱结论中的very likely,
同意E． "very likely" 应是现状与曾经相比．＂useful in evaluating ＂则应在现状与曾经之间找出差别．
I think B will be correct if the question says that he did not submit the list.
I prefer E in this case.
Agree,
Here, obviously requiring to compare the relationship between this person's submitting a list and running a selection. There is nothing with how many ways fulfilling requirements itself has.
Some of keys of CR questions of GWD in CD look mindless and misleading , right?
Some of SC are uncertain though, they are not mindless.
欧觉得11楼的分析贴切一些。B is better.
E 用的是过去完成时，以前 Bergeron 是否适合州长竞选和如今的候选似乎关系不大。
如果 E 的话，还要假设 Bergeron 的 financial status 从上次 file 以来无变化。
请 mindfree 再指点。
E更贴近原文的逻辑. 以前说要竞选，但都没有. 那么这次file，是否能够说明要竞选呢? E的意思就是看以前有没有file, 如果以前没有，那么这次很有可能是要竞选.
如果选B的话, 第一句话里面" he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run."一点用都没有.
The question ask what's the relationship between submitting a detailed list of financial boldings and the running for governor, in other words, whether the former is bound to indicate the latter. However, for B, it only say something about whether submitting list is the only form to fulfill the requirement, in my opinion, some other relationship unrelevant to the evaluation.
Welcome for any comments!
B就根本是个无关选项.
无论递交财务状况是不是取得选举资格的唯一方式,都和结论无关.如果改成提交财务状况唯一可能的作用是取得选举资格,那还有可能是对的.
我来说两句： 首先，阿诺德－斯瓦辛格（本题原型人物）已经当选加州州长了，所以大家应该没有争议，媒体关心的不是参选标准是否唯一的问题，而是州长本人以前有没有准备过公布财产，从文章可以推出公布财产是一个必要条件而非充分条件，因此才引起媒体猜疑，所以，凭直觉那就选E吧－－开开玩笑。
但从逻辑上推理，的确应该选E。对E的回答刚好可以起到加强或削弱结论的作用，注意结论中的“LIKELY”
对B的回答则是绝对的，如果是，阿诺德先生肯定准备参选，结论中无需显示“LIKELY”所以，B不准确
Since you mentioned required condition and sufficient condition, we start there. Filing is apparently a sufficient condition based on the question. Answer to B will help find out whether it is also a required condition. However, whether it is required is not relevant. Just make up an example:
Tom bought flight ticket from Baffalo to NYC. We think he is going to NYC. However, buying flight ticket is not a required condition. He can buy train ticket or just get a rental car. It is a sufficient condition but adequate to evaluate whether he is going. Whether it is required does not lend any help to this evaluation.
暂时没看懂，以后再收拾，哈哈
B感觉有点隔靴挠痒的
E可以看成become a candidate和fulfill the financial requirement的搭桥,因为原文的重点是在于两者的因果关系,E象是同因异果的思路!
个人意见
我开始选e，在我听了gwd的光盘后，我觉得b好些；b的内容相关，而e中的before any previous gubernatorial elections使内容和原文无关；我现在的选举情况和原来没有关系，除非你告我之间的联系。当然，如果我对管的思想理解正确的话；
E！如果B是说公开财务报表是否意味参选就easy了。。。ft
B。Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
提交财务列表是不是完成参选××要求的唯一条件？是，完成要求，可能参选（也可能只是玩玩）；不是，无法判断（谁知道他完没完成其它要求？）
E。Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
以前竞选期间，他是否干过同样的事情？是，不参加的可能性大；不是，参加的可能性大（如果此人做事原则向来一致的话）
支持B
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
原文的逻辑是全部填写财务情况，是very likely的可能成为候选人之一。
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?
Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
YES 明显加强原文推导
NO 削弱原文的推导
总之，B就是个评价性问题。
Since you mentioned required condition and sufficient condition, we start there. Filing is apparently a sufficient condition based on the question. Answer to B will help find out whether it is also a required condition. However, whether it is required is not relevant. Just make up an example:
Tom bought flight ticket from Baffalo to NYC. We think he is going to NYC. However, buying flight ticket is not a required condition. He can buy train ticket or just get a rental car. It is a sufficient condition but adequate to evaluate whether he is going. Whether it is required does not lend any help to this evaluation.
言之有理， b中only 是祸根阿
正确答案要能二面回答。
我选Ｅ。回答ＹＥＳ＝＝〉削弱；回答ＮＯ＝＝〉支持。
B错！ 如果submitting a list of holdings是the only way ＝＝〉支持；如果submitting a list of holdings不是the only way ＝＝〉他可以通过其它途径 （不是削弱）。
同意E
B错在only不only根本没关系
就算是only又怎么样，但submitting a list of holdings可能是有其他用处，就好比有的人考GMAT只不过是想挑战一下自己的思维，不一定是去申请mba,虽然考gmat是美国MBA申请的only way,所以并不能因此就认为很可能去申请MBA,因为不能排除这种可能
I choose E.
As for E,answering yes or no doesn't support or weaken the argument because at least he already fufill the requirment to be a candidate anyway no matter how many options he has.
As for E, answering yes will weaken the argument by suggesting that even though he fullfill the requirment this year, he also fullfilled it last year when he didn't become the candidate. So he is likely not to become the candidate this year again. But answering no will strengthen the argument.
C为什么不可以呢?
如果消息是假的,那就根本没这回事了嘛
想不通的说
E更好
读完文章，我判断可能的答案会使这件事情是不是必须的，即必要性
看到B，一眼看出是错误答案，它只能说明是否充分
E更贴近原文的逻辑. 以前说要竞选，但都没有. 那么这次file，是否能够说明要竞选呢? E的意思就是看以前有没有file, 如果以前没有，那么这次很有可能是要竞选.
如果选B的话, 第一句话里面" he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run."一点用都没有.
好像懂点了.
B反了！
E正确，盖棺定论了！
B,
文:"this year" !
E: previous elections, out of scope !
C为什么不可以呢?
如果消息是假的,那就根本没这回事了嘛
想不通
我也纳闷了，如果消息不准确的话，BE都白争。如果这次这个人又是放空话炒作自己呢？那不还是和以前一样！
C才是正解！而且，EHad Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?里面只是evaluate他以前几次有没有fulfill requirement,并不等于evaluate他有没有submit a list喽，fulfill了又怎样，没有submit还不是等于什么都没作,fulfill的人在社会上多了去了吧，那他们岂不是都要竞选？
B Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
是only又怎样，他不作别的准备活动不是也白搭，不是only又怎样，他满足了任何一种不就可以了，你管他有几种方式
怎么这么多人都不选C呢？非常费解，请拍砖
C为什么不可以呢?
如果消息是假的,那就根本没这回事了嘛
想不通的说
我也同意这个观点，虽然大家都在讨论B和E，但是我认为C是更好的答案。
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
原文说AB这个人一直都说自己要进入政界，但是从来没有真正的run过。
再看看C的选项，
Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
也就是说如果Journalist的信息本来就来自AB自己的talk，而不是election commission，那不就可以evaluate argument了吗？
Let's Fight,
Demon Hunter
这题对b还有疑问哦，回答是，提交是参选的唯一途径，支持结论，这个大家都没什么争议了；回答否，提交不是参选的唯一途径，那说明还有其他方法，那既然还有其他方法，A又提交了财务报告，那不就说明他不一定是要参选，可能有其他原因而提交吗？
e用过去评价现在好像挺说得过去的，但是ets好像对这种把不同时间段的状况比较的说法比较敏感，一般都会认为错的。写argument的时候这种过去=现在也是logical fallacies之一阿
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
E,无法解决划线中的2个问题。如果选举根本不要提交这个东东。那么过去是否B提交过没有什么关系。
但是B，就不一样，回答yes, 很有可能B要选举.very likely(文章的可能性正是表明了非充分性）.. 回答no，可能性不大。如果原文没有very likely，B就错。
I chose E when I was doing GWD. But after I looked at the question carefully, I prefer B instead. My reason is the same as fair_sword's.
Another reason is that the journalist has already answered the question in E. The answer is obviously no because the journalist's conclusion comes from B's fulfillment of the requirement, suggesting that B had never fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections.
...
B is correct. E is irrelative.
evalution其实就是要找一个参照点，大家按一个标准来衡量，这样才有可比性。
B：Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
缺少一个桥梁: 满足了竞选委员会的财务披露要求就表示要参加竞选了。不知道老美会不会认为这个是公民应该知道的常识。
E 好像靠谱点，和题目结合得还可以。不过楼上说的也有道理，我做题的时候就根据楼上说的“过去=现在也是logical fallacies之一”排除了E
SUPPORT B.
E無關
某人从未参选过参议院，但是财产数是符合申请标准的。近年此人提交了财产申报表，因而有可能打算参选。下面的几个选项，支持或者削弱的都叫对evaluation有利。
A. 无关。是否有别人提交了申报表，数额是否巨大，与题意无关。只要此人达到要求的数字就可以。
B.无关。总之此人提交了申报表，就是打算参选的重要一步。就算有别的参选方法，此人还是提交了申报表。
C.似有关联。如果消息的来源不可靠，此人根本没有提交申报表，那题目就会被推翻。新闻报道很讲究消息来源就是这个道理。
D.无关。他的财产数已经达到最低限制，再高也不影响参选。
E.似有关联。若以前的选举，此人也曾经提交过申报表，但因为种种原因，都没有参选，那么此次他仍然提交了申报表，会不会也出现同样的意外情况呢?
C\E之间权衡了一下，决定选C。因为C一旦值得怀疑，整个论证的根本依据（他提交了财产申报表）就不存在了。
同意。
怎么会是B呢?只要是竞选委员会要求的,管它是不是唯一的要求,这牛人去做了,就说明他今年想去玩真的了.所以E更好啊.他要是以前做了,这次又这么做,那也许就不是真的.如果以前没做过,他做了,那就是来真的拉.
赞同42楼的观点！
自己的思路
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have
just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?
A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
选择E，两个理由1。由题干的突出部分看出时间差异；2。从前fulfill没有run for governor,削弱结论；从前没有fulfil没有run for governor，加强结论,故evaluate
B体现的是submit与 fulfil之间的关系，而结论或者说我们追求的关系是fulfil与 run之间的关系
[Evaluate] B想竞选州长，但从未行动过
竞选州长（A）——〉财务公开（B）
E 以前有没有财务公开（虽然没有竞选过）？Ｙ 没有竞选州长（A补）——〉财务公开（B） 削弱（无因有果）
Ｎ 没有竞选州长（Ａ补） ——〉财务没有公开（Ｂ补） 加强（无因无果）
B 提交财务清单与满足财务公开要求的充分必要条件（the only way)。明显的无关选项。
C：Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
from the election commission.说明不了问题，原文没有任何证据表明来源于EC的消息肯定正确，不是来源于EC的消息就肯定错误
B：Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
如果是唯一的途径，他递交了，不能说明他可能去参选；因为只有递交才能参选，但是不代表递交了就能参选；只能说明他可能参选，可能不参选；
同样，如果不是唯一的途径，他递交了只能说明他可能参选，可能不参选。
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?
没有思路，E可以吗？
答案主要在B和E中犹豫。
B、submitting a list of holding 是否是满足竞选委员会对于资产公开要求的唯一方法。公开资产是竞选的必要条件，不是充分条件。无论这个问题的答案是yes or no，都无法对Bergeron是否参加竞选进行判断。有点不相关。
E、Bergeon之前是否也提交过类似的资料。题干中说，bergeon之前从未参加过竞选，如果之前也提交过资料；说明，提交资料和竞选没有关系。则可以对记者的argument进行evaluate，等于是在weaken。如果答案是从未交过，说明一定程度上support记者的argument。
B、E比较，个人prefer E.
答案主要在B和E中犹豫。
B、submitting a list of holding 是否是满足竞选委员会对于资产公开要求的唯一方法。公开资产是竞选的必要条件，不是充分条件。无论这个问题的答案是yes or no，都无法对Bergeron是否参加竞选进行判断。有点不相关。
E、Bergeon之前是否也提交过类似的资料。题干中说，bergeon之前从未参加过竞选，如果之前也提交过资料；说明，提交资料和竞选没有关系。则可以对记者的argument进行evaluate，等于是在weaken。如果答案是从未交过，说明一定程度上support记者的argument。
B、E比较，个人prefer E.
我选b
e中,哪个gubernatorial 原文没有出现过,我也不知道是什么意思, 就排除了.
但是后面想了想发现,文章中讲的是选governor, 而不是选gubernatorial,所以我觉得应该是b对!
这是CR复习资料里比较有意思的一题，昨晚还跟老婆用类比的事例讨论来着：
假设我的某位私密女性好友Nichole好做草莓蛋糕，而我恰巧被老婆知道昨晚我吃了草莓蛋糕，老婆会不会怀疑我去了Nichole的家过夜？这时Nichole平时是不是光做草莓蛋糕还是也做巧克力蛋糕其实并不重要(B)，要是我是平时不吃草莓蛋糕的话(D)，那我就屎定了...
这是CR复习资料里比较有意思的一题，昨晚还跟老婆用类比的事例讨论来着：
假设我的某位私密女性好友Nichole好做草莓蛋糕，而我恰巧被老婆知道昨晚我吃了草莓蛋糕，老婆会不会怀疑我去了Nichole的家过夜？这时Nichole平时是不是光做草莓蛋糕还是也做巧克力蛋糕其实并不重要(B)，要是我是平时不吃草莓蛋糕的话(D)，那我就屎定了...
我见到D的时候想选D，见到E之后就把D否定了。D只描述了“财产增加”与“公布财产”之间的关系，而没有涉及到“公布财产”与“参加竞选”之间的关系。文章让我们评价的就是“公布财产”与“参加竞选”之间的逻辑关系，D不在讨论范围之内。
这题确定选 E 无疑。
B 的回答只决定了提交财产清单是（或否）参选的必要条件。
不可以说满足必要条件，去判定这个人已经参选。只能说不满足必要条件，这个人肯定不参选。
这也是 mindfree 大牛在8楼表达的意思
而 E 选项，则以这个人过往的历史记录类比佐证，显然更有说服力。
windlake 发表于 2005-8-10 11:52
E！如果B是说公开财务报表是否意味参选就easy了。。。ft提交财务列表是不是完成参选××要求的唯一条件？是 ...
jhleoh 发表于 2005-12-25 17:18
I choose E. As for E,answering yes or no doesn't support or weaken the argument because a ...
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |
