ChaseDream

标题: 结构怪异的假设题 看完讨论帖还是不懂 求助! [打印本页]

作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-9 15:03
标题: 结构怪异的假设题 看完讨论帖还是不懂 求助!
Newspaper editorial:

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.Part 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?

A.Not 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.

B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

C.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.

D.Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

E.The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

OA:C

一般假设题都是前面premise,后面conclusion,最后选项取非反对conclusion。
而这道题出现了however,也就是说however才是结论。
那么premise:上了学的出狱后犯罪少
     conclusion:结果跟政府希望的相反(犯罪率高了)
然后C选项取非后就是,上过学的出狱后已经很少犯罪了(和premise一样啊),是支持结论的,木有反对啊……

好心人帮我看看我的思考过程哪里出问题了?谢谢了!

作者: cdwayne    时间: 2011-9-9 16:43
conclusion: However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal.
cause: since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

(C): How about if those who choose to take such courses have less disposition to re-commit crimes?
(若是選擇上課的人本身就不容易再犯罪呢?)
作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-10 20:21
哦~!
那就是C取非变成了他因驳斥,是因为那个人本性好,不是因为上学~
又读了几遍C才看懂C的意思,怪不得C中时态不一样,我都没注意~
太感谢了!终于明白了!
作者: cxn仔    时间: 2011-9-10 22:35
楼主  我还是没看懂啊
我也是你第一楼的想法
可以麻烦帮我解释一下不啊?谢谢啊
作者: cxn仔    时间: 2011-9-10 22:37
为什么假设要是课程不是减少犯罪的原因呢?
作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-11 23:17
你再读读C的意思~
我开始没理解是因为C的意思没理解~
C中有个WERE看到没?
就是说在上学之前他们就是好人~上不上学没影响~
这个时态太坑爹了~
懂没?
作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-11 23:23
为什么假设要是课程不是减少犯罪的原因呢?
-- by 会员 cxn仔 (2011/9/10 22:37:07)


我觉得是这样的~
否定结论必要性可以通过否定它的结果不成立,也可以用另一种解释来反驳,就是说那个人的解释不对~
两种都可以~
你再读读看~
作者: cxn仔    时间: 2011-9-11 23:44
我现在的理解是 否定C就是说上了课的人出来犯罪率还是很高
然后 结论是 犯罪率上升。。

囧 没反对结论啊??


我的assuption很弱啊 求楼主再耐心指点一下啊

不过不取非的话 就是说 结论犯罪高  但是 参加课程了的犯罪少 那答案应该是犯罪率和参加课程无关  C就是 参加了课程不会少犯罪 可以理解成 和犯罪率无关么?
作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-12 15:07
不一定要否结论~
你看这种题是在however后有个since~since是解释~
否定这个命题可以说结论不对,也可以说他的解释不对~
这题就是说他的解释不对~
作者: cxn仔    时间: 2011-9-12 16:40
噢噢 明白了 谢谢哈
作者: thechooosenone    时间: 2011-9-12 18:24
我刚才又看下题~
我觉得这么解释更好理解~
C选项在说the group…,是这一群人是这样,不代表其他上学的人~
换句话说就是,作者观点之所以不对,是因为他的理由不具有普遍性~所以他的理由不对~自然他的结论就unwarranted
给你解释我才发现自己还没理解彻底~




欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3