标题: 来看看这道题目！ [打印本页] 作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-11 06:52 标题: 来看看这道题目！ 题目很短，但是逻辑性很强。 Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral. Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that (A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another (B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable (C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally (D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws (E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-11 11:38
A for sure since A) equals "something that is legally permissible could be immoral."作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-11 12:28
A for sure since A) equals "something that is legally permissible could be immoral."
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/11 11:38:17)
Sorry, I don't understand your logical way. It seems so simple! This question looks short but has strong logic.作者: fjatpku 时间: 2011-8-11 13:13
sdcar2010 is right. a hidden premise: anything not covered by law is legally permissible作者: 屡败屡战 时间: 2011-8-11 18:01
好像是91还是92年的题，有印象，好像当时做错了作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-12 00:09
sdcar2010 is right. a hidden premise: anything not covered by law is legally permissible
-- by 会员 fjatpku (2011/8/11 13:13:41)
隐含的，这个隐含的也要自己分析出来的，那第一句等于白说了？而且A-E答案中也有绕的，你怎么不知道别的选项是正确的呢？ Statement 1: From Govt law > Moral cues So, its reverse negation will also be correct: ~(Moral cues) > ~(From Govt law)
From Statement 1, we can say that: Inconsistent legally permissible > not moral cues > ~(From Govt law)作者: fjatpku 时间: 2011-8-12 11:16
"anything not covered by law is legally permissible" IMO this is common sense. LSAT does require you to know some common sense. And your analysis to statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is a statement of fact. If you really want to analyze this statement in the "logical way", it should be: some people ==> they take their moral cues from governmental codes of law the reverse negation is: they take their moral cues from governmental codes of law ====> they are not "some people"作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-13 01:21
Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral. This sentence uses ; as a stop sign. It means the first statement and the second statement share the equal right. I don't think the first statement is useless in this argument. What you said about common sense, I found it funny. The test-maker of LSAT seldom would like people to know about common sense. LSAT is a standard test which means you could come different background including non-legal people. How could these people know about these common sense? Plus, this anylysis way is not run by me. It came from one of my American friend. I think it is sound. That's it! And your negating way of statement 1, I don't agree. Some people here reflects Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs in the question. Which rule of negating? Common sense doesnot make any sense.作者: fjatpku 时间: 2011-8-13 01:59
Is your American friend a law student? I scored 170+ in this test, and your friend's analysis seems inconsistent with my mind.作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-16 12:11
She is the law student in columbia university. Which law school do you belong to?作者: fjatpku 时间: 2011-8-16 22:18
I'm 0L. You can check http://lawschoolnumbers.com/BKB if you're interested how my cycle will be going.作者: Daken 时间: 2011-8-19 12:01
Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral. Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that (A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another (B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable (C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally (D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws (E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy
第一句好像是木有什么用，第二句实际就是这些人不同的观点，找paraphrase。第二句提到的相反的观点的Reverse negation应该是 Moral things couldn't be legally impermissible.
先分析B选项，B选项是反对意见的reverse negation的reverse的观点。所以不对。
C 政府官员和题目木有什么关系，不代表law也不代表morality，argument是讨论leagal permissible 和 moral action的关系，无视之。
D 道德的‘共同意见’（标准是不是会好些）在法律中得到表达，这个是support的吧。ban掉
E 看到economy就宣布死刑吧。
回头看A law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another 法律并没对不道德的行为进行规定。额 只能根据common sense，法无明文规定不为罪，所以law没cover的应该算作permissible，所以这句话可以改成 Some circumstances which is morally wrong is leagally permissible. 可以改写成 Some moral thing are illegal. 根据bible中对于some句型的分析，这句可以改写成 Some illegal things are moral. 直接符合原文中第二句提出的反对意见，所以选这个。
分析完了继续潜水~作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-19 20:38
Some circumstances which is morally wrong is leagally permissible. 可以改写成 Some moral thing are illegal.
No. It should be: Some immoral thing are legal.作者: Daken 时间: 2011-8-19 21:31
看错鸟= =多谢指正。。我是瞎子 啊啊啊作者: cathycathyhan 时间: 2011-8-20 01:25
用数学方法交集也可以分析，一个圈子是law,里面一部分是immoral,另一个部分是moral事情，那答案就显而易见了。 类似的题目还有： Any fruit that is infected is also rotten. No fruit that was inspected is infected. Therefore, any fruit that was inspected is safe to eat. The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? A. It is not safe to eat any fruit that is rotten. B. It is safe to eat any fruit that is not rotten. C. It would have been safe to eat infected fruit if it ihad been inspected. D. It is not safe to eat any fruit that is infected. E. It is safe to eat any fruit that is unifected.作者: JDreamer 时间: 2011-9-17 23:18
The key of the question in #14 is B. Am I right? I'm new here~作者: LCD1989 时间: 2011-11-25 12:35
Each December 31 in Country Q, a tally is made of the country’s total available coal supplies- that is, the total amount of coal that has been mined throughout the country but not consumed. In 1991 that amount was considerably lower than it had been in 1990. Furthermore, Country Q has not imported or exported coal since 1970.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them? (A) In country Q, more coal was mined in 1990 than was mined in 1991. (B) In country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1991 was greater than the amount of coal mined in 1991. (C) in country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1990 was greater than the amount of coal consumed in 1991. (D) in country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1991 was greater than the amount of coal consumed in 1990. (E) in country Q, more coal was consumed during the first half of 1991 than was consumed during the first half of 1990.
what's the logic that they are trying to test u in this question?作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-11-25 12:41
Must be true type question. The answer has to be true according to the passage. In this case it's simple math.
Total available coal supplies in 1991 = total available coal supplies in 1990 + amount mined in 1991 - amount consumed in 1991.
If Total available coal supplies in 1991 < total available coal supplies in 1990, then (amount mined in 1991 - amount consumed in 1991) < 0, then amount mined in 1991 < amount consumed in 1991
~