ChaseDream

标题: 请教一道逻辑题 [打印本页]

作者: xingxc11 时间: 2011-7-24 10:54
标题: 请教一道逻辑题
100.
Brochure: Help conserve our city’s water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?
A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

作者: jackie19881102 时间: 2011-7-24 17:35
选B。
B里面说传统的landscape会在fertilizer和herbicide这两方面花费比water-conserving更多的钱，那也就是说我如果装了water-saving devices，就会save money，也就是对criticism的强烈weaken和对brochure的strengthen
我不是什么大牛，但还是希望能帮到你。

作者: zjsxsj 时间: 2011-7-24 18:24
应该是改装成water-conserving landscape，才save money 吧，不是装了water-saving devices

作者: xingxc11 时间: 2011-7-25 20:33
恩是的那为什么不选D呢？

作者: xingxc11 时间: 2011-7-25 20:34

选B。
B里面说传统的landscape会在fertilizer和herbicide这两方面花费比water-conserving更多的钱，那也就是说我如果装了water-saving devices，就会save money，也就是对criticism的强烈weaken和对brochure的strengthen
我不是什么大牛，但还是希望能帮到你。

-- by 会员 jackie19881102 (2011/7/24 17:35:33)

那为什么不选D呢？

作者: xingxc11 时间: 2011-7-25 20:34

应该是改装成water-conserving landscape，才save money 吧，不是装了water-saving devices

-- by 会员 zjsxsj (2011/7/24 18:24:45)

恩是这样那D有什么错误呢？

作者: helenlife 时间: 2011-7-26 11:14
Criticism holds that the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape from a conventional landscape is very small, the difference of bill is only 20 dollars per year.

While D) is comparing the cost difference between setting up a water-conserving landscape and setting up a conventional landscape. It has nothing to do with the criticism.

Because the criticism emphasize on the result of conversion. Anything happened prior to the conversion is out of scope.

作者: zjsxsj 时间: 2011-7-27 11:45
6楼说的对，原文是指从conversion的cost,而不是指装这两个装置时的cost，无关选项

作者: balapupu 时间: 2011-7-27 12:01
可不可以这么理解，Criticism承认按装water-conserving landscaping 比conventional landscaping省钱，但是省的那20块钱，不足以支付新的landscaping的其他费用。D只不过是再度重申了装water-conserving landscaping 比conventional landscaping省钱。没有削弱Criticism的主要反驳Brochure的点。

作者: elusive 时间: 2016-3-26 11:38
可以是方案推理
目标：conserve our city’s water supply.
方案：converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape
方案可行性： natural and attractive, and also saves you money.

注意criticism,质疑方案可行性，质疑save money，因为converting expense>money saved from the new landscape.

如果答案说明了方案在save money方面的可行性，那么足以反驳反对者。所以答案要提及方案和方案可行性
B：方案可行性-----实际上是省钱的。
D：没有说方案，说的是安装节水的L的花费和安装不节水的花费一样。

因果推理
因为节水装置省不了钱
所以不能装节水装置
要反驳结论，
B节水装置反而省钱。

相关因果推理
因：支持者说节水装置和省钱是有正相关性的
果：节水装置省钱
答案必须说明相关性，或者给省钱另外的说明
B-----节水装置省钱

类比推理
普通装置节水
花费花费

答案必须提及普通装置和节水装置的区别，要么给节水装节水置另外的解释
B-----区别是节水装置省钱。

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