大全-II-16題求助 - ChaseDream

16. Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.

(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.

(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.（D）

(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained.

题中已经明确表示不考虑飞行员的因素了，无论他们是不是contributing factor

E - supports the conclusion, saying evalute pilot training program will help to prevent future accidents

investigators should find out why the (pilot) error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs => (pilot) error is a factor of in most accidents => but problems in airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs caused (pilot) errors => therefore the root problem is problems in airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs.

以下是引用jandjshi在2006-3-28 6:01:00的发言：

A is actually against what aurthor said. A weakens the conclusion.

如果Pilot是主要的原因，那么analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs 就是无用的。因此这个地方的假定前提就是pilot不是主因，其他那几个是主因。

文中说why the error was made 表明承认了pilot 的error，只是进一步分析pilot error 的原因有 design management and pilot training.

所以A不对，且文中更本没程度的比较，所以contributing 推不出来

First, the conclusion of the paragraph is "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident."

"Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program" is the premise.

The question asks for the "presupposition" of the argument which means the answer needs to best support the conclusion. So, if we look at the answers one by one.

A: Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. - When putting A and the other premise together, it kinna works but the 2 premises conflict eath other. "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error..." tells us that clearly the author thinks pilot error is a contributing factor but she'd rather focus on the root cause.

D: Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. - When putting together with the other premise, articulate a clear logic which is "Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents" so, "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error (which would not help fix the problem to happen again), investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program." => "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident. "

Here is my thinking to solve the problem.
First, the conclusion of the paragraph is "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident."
"Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program" is the premise.
The question asks for the "presupposition" of the argument which means the answer needs to best support the conclusion. So, if we look at the answers one by one.
A: Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. - When putting A and the other premise together, it kinna works but the 2 premises conflict eath other. "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error..." tells us that clearly the author thinks pilot error is a contributing factor but she'd rather focus on the root cause.
D: Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. - When putting together with the other premise, articulate a clear logic which is "Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents" so, "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error (which would not help fix the problem to happen again), investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program." => "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident. "
My humble opinion. Feedback is welcomed.

-- by 会员 unparadise (2009/10/23 14:25:00)