ChaseDream

标题: lsat-18-4-17 [打印本页]

作者: ztlbox 时间: 2004-8-25 06:50
标题: lsat-18-4-17

17. The recent dramatic increase in commuter airline crashes is caused in large part by pilot inexperience. As a major growth industry, the commuter airlines have recently had a great increase in the demand for experienced pilots. It is impossible to define and assess pilot experience, however. For example, someone with 1000 hours of flight experience as an instructor in Arizona, where the weather is good, cannot be compared to someone with 1000 hours' experience as a night cargo pilot in the stormy northeastern United States.

The author's conclusion that the dramatic increase in commuter airline crashes is caused by pilot inexperience is most weakened by the fact that the author has

(A) argued that it is impossible to measure "pilot experience"

(B) used an example that does not relate logically to the point being illustrated

(D) made an unfair comparison between experience as a flight instructor and experience as a night cargo pilot

(E) not specified how much of the recent increase in commuter airline crashes is due to pilot inexperience

why B is incorrect

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-8-26 05:27

1。原文用不同地方，不同条件的1000H飞行经验不同的例子说明不可能评价飞行经验，例子和结论是relate logically 。故B错

2。原文问题很绕，实质是原文用何方法WEAKEN原文结论。原文说因为难界定飞行经验，故结论飞行事故由没经验引起的说法受到怀疑。即A

作者: ztlbox 时间: 2004-8-26 21:52
标题: lsat-18-4-17
however 理解错了，以为是例子和前面观点的转折，郁闷

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-4 17:22

ztlbox 发表于 2004-8-25 06:50
17. The recent dramatic increase in commuter airline crashes is caused in large part by pilot inexpe ...

Spot the question type: Method of reasoning - weaken.

Argument structure:

Citing an example to support a sub-conclusion as to conclude a claim.

However, Sub- C, it is impossible to define and assess pilot experiences, does not mean that commuter airlines does not have experienced pilot even it have had a great increase in the demand of experienced pilots.

* You need money does not mean you do not have money " Perhaps you just need more.

B. It does relate logically to the point being illustrated. ( The point of " it is impossible to define and assess pilot experiences )

C. It does not provide any explanation

D. it is not unfair. It is reasonable.

E. It could strengthen the argument; however, without it does not weaken the argument. So, without citing the recent increases does not necessary " not be able " to prove the point must be true.

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