Q32:
Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. 
art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
答案是a,可我觉得是c,请大家帮我看看？
没有找到以前讨论的链接，所以想借这里再次讨论，请高手指点。
我原来也选了C，但仔细考虑后，却觉得A可能更好。
对A取非，则变成：Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed. 意味着：在监狱中不能够take college-level courses 可能会阻止犯罪，这样，就对文中的结论： this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal起到了weaken. 所以A应该是一个assumption.
对C取非，则变成：The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. 但这不是直接对结论削弱，而是削弱了since后的evidence。
Discussion welcome!
robert,
1.I have a question: why not the opposite of A should be "Being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed", and how to 取非 a sentence, like A.
2.the opposite of C---
The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.--- I think it is in support of the governor's ultimate goal ....
请robert指点一下!! many thanks in advance!
选A.
A取非有削弱作用。但是C取非后实际和原文一致。在og里面有很多错误就是这样的, consist with argument,
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.
Two side notes:
Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.
The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
Open to discussion.
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
I still can't understand why A is irreleveant.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.
I have question: Since deny C, we got" the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released"----means coursesd--->fewer crimes--->why we deny it again to get the LoR of the author:{ inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate}.....confusing.....maybe I misunderstand something
Two side notes:
Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.
The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
I see, but I think why not the opposite of A is "Being able to to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."(读书不可能deter任何人)---
many many thanks for robert's help! you are so nice!!
I still have some question, 看看大家的看法吧？？^-^！！！
maybe the biggest problem is my poor english!!
Agree with A
- conclusion is the last sentence
- (concealed assumption) - counter to surprise
Robertchu解释得真好。
支持答案C。个人理解，还请大家指点：
1、这题的argument是作者的argument,而governor的那些论断和做法只能作为argument的背景材料，所有的推论和assumption都应该围绕作者本人的论证过程来进行。因此本题的结论是：该行为有违governor本来的最终目标（降低犯罪率）；原因是：在监狱里上过大学的人出来后犯罪率比别的犯人犯罪率低。言下之意，如果不上大学，他们会和别的犯人犯罪率一样高。（注意这里隐含了一个推论过程：造成这种结果是因为他们上了大学，而不是别的什么原因。）选项C恰好符合这个隐含的推论条件。
2、其实OG里有挺多这样类似的题，就是AB两个事件一起发生，并不一定说明A就是B的原因。有可能B是A的原因，也有可能谁也不是谁的原因。这里问assumption,就是要排除这些错误的可能，从而使推论成立。
我觉得C 不对。
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely[就是说读大学的比没读大学的可能少犯罪，就是
Two side notes:
Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.
The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
Open to discussion.
我觉得选C是因为即使对A取非，也不能反驳作者the action won't reduce crime rate 的结论。如果作者所说的less crime rate-->access to college courses成立，那么取消大学课程会有两个后果：deter someone from a crime; no less crime rate.这并不能反驳作者the action won't reduce crime rate 的结论。欢迎讨论！
It should be C. A simple test: A indicates that taking the courses has no impact on reducing crime rate. This is apparent opposite to the argument, in which the author is trying to say that by denying the access to such courses, the governor will not achieve his goal of reducing crime rate, indicating that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate.
C is clearly the answer in this question. The argument is trying to point out that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate. C indicates that it was not because people are already less likely to commit crime when they take the courses.
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.
Two side notes:
Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.
The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
Open to discussion.
牛！
The answer, I think shall be A.
1. The goal of the government: to reduce crime rate
2. Argument: Courses help reduce the possibility of committing crime again by those released after imprisonment. In this connetion, obliterating the courses runs counter to the goal of the government.
(Please pay attention to the tense of choice A)
However, there is the possibility that someone makes the decision to commit a crime partly because the condition in prison is comfortable, e.g. free courses are available. That is to say, if the 'incentive' is undermined, someone might not be a criminal, and this improvement will compensate for the crime rate rise owning to the cancellation of the courses. Choice A helps rule out the above situation and is thus an valid assumption of the argument.
As for Choice C, even "The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released", it by no means indicate that the courses could not further assist them to keep distance from committing crime.
This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.
Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.
Two side notes:
Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.
The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
Open to discussion.
这个思路很有新意啊, 谢谢.
我想A可以算是support, 但不是assumption, 因为不是必要条件, 作者说take courses之后是有用的, A说取消take courses的资格是无用的, 是反驳governor的, 但并不影响作者的结论, 因为即使对A取非, 即取消take courses的资格对reduce criminal rate有用, 但是也许take courses之后作用更大. 所以A是support, 不是assumption.
NN的讨论很精彩。
偶刚开始一眼就看中了c,并且坚定的认为不会错，但是看看了NN的讨论，觉得C有点问题，C说“The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released” 我觉得是不是错在这里，按照惯常的“去处它因”思路，如果答案是“被选中的那批人本来（在上课之前）就更少可能犯罪” 就对了吧。
小弟心得參考即可
題目要看董
原始目標是"降低犯罪率"
所以將監獄環境惡化
但會使原本有的大專課程停止
本題主要結論為"違反原始立意"
原始目標是降低犯罪率
而上過大專課程的犯人出獄後犯罪較少
因而課程停止將無法達成此目標
因此違背原始目的
但題目只講上過課的出獄後犯罪率低
並沒講"降低"
除非"假設"原始那些去上課的犯人上課前
他們的犯罪可能性並沒有"已經比較低"-也就是上課前犯罪率是大於等於其他人
如此上完課被放出後才有"降低"
因此上課可滿足原始立意
而課被停掉會違背原始目的
C完全吻合題目要的假設
A句意是
”無法上課並不能阻止一個人去犯他／她可能真的去犯的罪”
A可以是沒上過課的那些人的假設
但只講出對照組（沒上課的人）的負相假設（沒上課不能阻止犯罪）
要控制組（上課的人）的正向關鍵假設（上課可降低犯罪率）存在
全文主旨（廢除課程違反政府欲降低犯罪率的原意）才成立
只講出沒上課不能阻止人犯罪
不代表有上課就能阻止犯罪
這樣會成為過度推論
因此即使有A仍然不知道上課那些人是否因上課而使犯罪率降低
文中只講放出後這些人犯罪率比一般人低
如果這些人沒上課前本來就比較低
上課就沒用
廢除課程就不會違反”政府欲降低犯罪率”的原意
因此還是缺乏關鍵假設
必須有那些要上課的人的犯罪率
在上課前必須要假設比一般人高
這樣上完課犯罪率低於一般人才表示上課能夠降低犯罪率
取消課程才會違反政府原意
本題若在雞考時2分內可直接看董想必有730以上
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |