ChaseDream

标题: lsat-1-1-12/LSAT-1-1-13 [打印本页]

作者: flywood 时间: 2004-8-5 09:40
标题: lsat-1-1-12/LSAT-1-1-13

12. If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence.

It most logically follows from the statement above that, if Country X does intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region.

(A) Will definitely fall under enemy influence

(B) Will probably fall under enemy influence

(D) Will definitely not fall under enemy influence

(E) May or may not fall under enemy influence

解题思路:是不是A推出B,A非推出B的方向不定,所以答案是E,B的不对是不是在表述上不如E精确?

前一段都凭感觉做题,错误率也还可以,可是昨天错了一踏糊涂,开始恶补逻辑知识,希望你们可以帮我.

13. Top college graduates are having more difficulty demonstrating their superiority to prospective employers than did the top students of twenty years ago when an honors degree was distinction enough. Today’s employers are less impressed with the honors degree. Twenty years ago no more than 10 percent of a given class graduated with honors. Today, however, because of grade inflation, the honors degree goes to more than 50 percent of a graduating class, Therefore, to restore confidence in the degrees they award, colleges must take steps to control grade inflation.

Which one of the following is an assumption that, if true, would support the conclusion in the passage?

(A) Today’s students are not higher achievers than the students of twenty years ago.

(B) Awarding too many honors degrees causes colleges to inflate grades.

(D) It is not easy for students with low grades to obtain jobs.

(E) Colleges must make employers aware of the criteria used to determine who receives an honors degree.

这道的B选项为什么不对,是取非以后不会削弱原文吗?这道题的解题思路是什么样?要抓住什么?我做的时候是这么想,结论要控制GRADE INFLATION,假设它对结论有加强的效果,所以答案B,请问这个解题思路的失误在哪里?

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-8-5 10:03

12。否命题不一定成立。即可成立，也可不成立。BC错在只说一种情况

13。答案为A，而非B。原文逻辑：过去有不超过10%的HONORS，现在有多余50%HONORS，所以GRADE膨胀了。如果现在学生比过去优秀，那GRADE就不膨胀那个了。A排除这种情况。故为假设。

作者: flywood 时间: 2004-8-5 11:25
谢谢, 我理解了,可是还有一点问题,13题中版主的结论“所以GRADE膨胀了”，我的结论是“要控制GRADE INFLATION”，很显然理解时不同，再请教我怎么就不对了，如果按版主的逻辑思路很清晰答案是A，而我的思路好象不对，为什么会这样，原文不是用TEHEREFORE引导了结论吗？希望NN能指点出我思路的失误，谢谢。

作者: flywood 时间: 2004-8-5 11:36
仔细想想,B是已经是文章的内容,根本就不需要附加的ASSUMPTION,可是对于结论的提取还是有点困惑,希望NN不要厌烦,继续教导教导我.

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-8-5 19:45

1。B的错误在于too many honors degrees ，你必须假设怎样才算太多。故错

2。原文用和20年前比较的方式得出现在的情况，然后得出一个结论说要control grade inflation。那作者已假定现在存在grade inflation的问题（不存在这个问题如何需控制）。也就是作者虽然说要control grade inflation，实际是说现在存在grade inflation的问题，就是两个结论是一样的。LSAT题在结论上常有花招，就是换一种说法说出来。

作者: flywood 时间: 2004-8-6 04:02
标题: lsat-1-1-12/LSAT-1-1-13

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-8-5 19:45:00的发言：

1。B的错误在于too many honors degrees ，你必须假设怎样才算太多。故错

非常清楚,谢谢!

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-3 17:04

flywood 发表于 2004-8-5 09:40
12. If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region will definitely f ...

12.

If Country X no intervene M in Y, the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence

Now, what if Country X does " intervene " Military in country Y ?

Ok, a bit tricky. If A, then B = If no B, then No A. Then what about If no A ?

If no A, then either No B or B, which is to say, the situation of B or No b will definitely happen.

let us dive into the options

A. Mistaken Negate

B. Which is to say, B might happened. B might happened does not mean either B or No B will " definitely " happen.

C. The same as B

D. Mistaken Negate

E. Correct answer.

13. Necessary Assumption

P1: College graduates are having more difficulty demonstrating their superiority to prospective employers than top students of 20 years ago when an honors degree was distinctively enough.

P2: employers are less impressed with the honors degree.

P3: 20 years ago no more than 10 percent of a given class graduated with honors, today, however, because of grad inflation, the honor degree goes to more than 50 percent of a graduating class.

C: To restore confidence in the degrees they award, colleges must take steps to control grade inflation.

Let us dive into the options.

A. negate, Today's students are " higher " achievers than the students of 20 yeas ago. Perfectly refute the argument. Its not because the grade inflation to have more than 50 percent of student to have honor degrees, but simply because they have been working hard.

B. Negate. Awarding " not " too many honors degrees causes colleges to inflate grades. It does not cause any impact on the argument.

C. Negate. Today's employ does not reply on honors ranking in making their hiring decision. ( It does not relevant to the " confidence " )

D. Negate. It is easy for student with low grades to obtain jobs ( It does not relevant to the argument )

E. College must not make employees aware of the criteria used to determine who receives an honors degree ( Not relevant to the point of the argument )

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-3 17:07

lawyer_1 发表于 2004-8-5 19:45
1。B的错误在于too many honors degrees ，你必须假设怎样才算太多。故错2。原文用和20年前比较的方式得出 ...

我的理解是從另外一個面向去想。

結論說, 如果要提升榮譽學位的信心, 學校勢必要對給分上的灌水調整。意思就是, 這個給分上的灌水是實際存在的, 但是重點是, 要是學生的分數高比十年前的比例多過五十％不是因為教授給分灌水呢？如果有其他原因讓學生分數高, 那就算調整分數灌水比例, 這個榮譽學位的信心必然不會上升。

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