Q12:
For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. 
olice studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in Fairmont. Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
答案A，我选了C
我的思路: For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. 一个事实
Police studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in Fairmont. 一个原因
Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.一个结果
因果搭桥，没有C的话，原因推不出结果（等于说，把c取非，就削弱了结果）。A是关于cost，是reasoning line之外的东东.
我的思路是:
G交的保险费比F多,但G出事的概率比F少,结论是:保险公司在G赚的钱比在F赚的钱多.
A他因削弱,不是因为G市的维修费用高造成保险费高的.
C无关选项,如果你再仔细理解车保险的内容的话,你就明白了,它不取非,本身就是和原文相反的削弱的选项,车主出事报告的多,那么保险公司赔的多,那在G市就赚不到钱了. 好多情况下,有些车主碰到一些小的损伤是不去向保险公司索赔的,这样保险公司就省钱了嘛.
不过这个本身是个无关选项,因为ruport和真正赔钱还是不同的.
我的思路是:
G交的保险费比F多,但G出事的概率比F少,结论是:保险公司在G赚的钱比在F赚的钱多.
A他因削弱,不是因为G市的维修费用高造成保险费高的.
可是这题题目问的是ａｓｓｕｍｐｔｉｏｎ啊，ｍｍ的意思是说ａ是排除它因吧。
可是我认为ａ的排除它因是错的，因为问题中就没有ｃｏｓｔ一说。
原文意思：ｇ的保费比ｆ高（事实）；然而ｇ的事故发生可能性低（原因）；所以保险公司在ｇ赚的多（结果）。
ｃ取非：ｇ居民报告的事故少----->给出的原因“事故发生可能性低”错，削弱结论
ｃ不取非：ｇ居民报告事故的热情大于ｆ-----> 给出的原因“事故发生可能性低”正确，因果搭桥
所以，ｃ正确
这里根本没有ｃｏｓｔ的任何问题啊？？？
我的思路哪里出问题了，请大家帮帮忙啊！！！谢谢了。
First of all, C counters what the argument is trying to prove. If C is correct, the insurance company will be justified to charge more on insurance and still would not earn a bigger profit.
C would be the correct answer if it says ...are NOT more likely...
Second, you should know that assumption is a required condition, not a sufficient condition for the argument.
One example of sufficient condition: Wang took a UA flight from Beijing to Chicago yesterday. So he is in the US now. If we say Wang did not take a UA flight, Wang might still be in the US now because he could have taken a Northwest flight.
This example help us clarify one more kind of assumption question. For example: Wang is in the US now. What is the assumption? The asnwer is not that Wang took a UA flight because that is just one sufficient condition. It does not have to be true.
感谢总教头,我一定好好弄清楚.
For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in Fairmont. Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.
c:Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are.
可是我认为这是两件事情啊，原文说“涉案率”c说的“报案率”，
只有报案的热情（报案率）大家都一样高，才能说明原文“涉案率”正确啊？
反之，报案热情不高，说明原文给出的“涉案率”低是错的，才能削弱啊？
我怎么想的和总教头相反啊。我想我的问题出大了。让我再想想。
我明白了,谢谢总教头耐心指导.c确实是直接weaken结论。
哦，我漏说了，是应该A取非，他因削弱。
妹妹，作assumption题第一步是应该；不要取非直接看是否和原文的判断是大体一致，就是支持原文的选项，C是一下就可以排除的，因为报告越多，保险公司赔越多。
还有一点是，老人给我经验：不合常理的千万不要选，这题就是有点常理的意思。
纯属交流
what about choice b?
if use the negation test: There ARE more motorists in G than in F.
taken into consideration the "on average" in L2 and "slightly less" in L3, the negations shows: "more accidents are happening in G than in F," greatly weakening the argument.
i think, the total number of cars that involved in accidents is the essence of choice B
thanx all in advance~
（我是新人 不管帖子多老 回帖总是有意义的）
我觉得这道题的意思是这样的 ：保险公司profit(P)=insurance(I)-repairing cost(C)
结论G(P)>F(P)
已知G(I)>F(I)
所以前提是G(C)<=F(C)
没错
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |