ChaseDream

标题: og12 114 求一个小确认~~~小菜抱拳啦~~~~~！！！！ [打印本页]

作者: bob9603 时间: 2012-3-5 20:36
标题: og12 114 求一个小确认~~~小菜抱拳啦~~~~~！！！！
114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论

[c2]无关

[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系

[c4]Support

[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。

[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

作者: ainiAnnie 时间: 2012-3-5 20:44
114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward（因）. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently（果）.
即 1930年以前宾馆的质量比1930年以后建造的宾馆质量好→1930年以前的carpenter 的技艺高于1930年以后的。要求削弱：即1930年以前的carpenter 技艺不高于1930以后的或者低于1930年以后的。

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in
other structures, such as houses and stores.（超出范围，无关）
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.（容纳的人多不代表其质量好）
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.（排除一个造成差距的客观因素，更倾向与主观因素，故support）
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.（support）

作者: 觞释 时间: 2012-3-7 20:19
借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

作者: ainiAnnie 时间: 2012-3-7 21:05

借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

-- by 会员觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

额。。。楼主是个热心人，他自己理解了可是说不出来，所以让我来写，我也不是什么大N，只能写出自己的想法，希望对你有帮助。
关于解题思路的培养，就逻辑题来说，你要多做OG，把上面的逻辑题都做了，就会对逻辑的解题思路就会有感觉，熟悉出题套路以后，就自然会想到了。
至于这一题，D选项说楼房质量越好，被闲置或废弃的可能性越小，那反过来想一下就好了么：质量越差的楼房越容易被废弃。

作者: bob9603 时间: 2012-3-7 21:12

-- by 会员觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

嗨，这位nn的问题很好啊，其实我做的时候就是用排除法，没有往这方面想~
其实我觉得原文中有比较，又因为是weaken题，所以应该削弱这种比较。
通俗一点说，这不是有比较嘛，你就把他们趋同（因为比较就会有不同，所以就要趋同），这是一种办法。
如果没有这类的选项，你就可以这么想：这对比较其实是不成立的，这样一来不就反驳了作者了吗
(其实个人觉得weaken题就是抬杠)

那对于这道题，也就是说，拿过去的和现在的比，没法比，为什么呢，你想啊，一个老的，一个新的，肯定多少存在时间关系，但又要联系原文，原文提及的是质量，所以还要以质量切入。你就往质量的角度去找让比较不成立的选项。

那看选项d，质量越好，越少损毁~也就是说，老的保留下来的就是好的~我觉得这里你会问“保留”这个感觉是怎么出来的，是酱，越少损坏，反过来说就是越多的留下来，所以就有保留的意思了，所以就有保留是最好的这样的感觉。
而反观现在的建筑，还没有经过时间的考验，所以自然没得比~

我说的比较啰嗦，你重点看红字的部分。

凑合看吧，我的逻辑也比较混乱~抱拳啦~

作者: bob9603 时间: 2012-3-7 21:22

-- by 会员觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/3/7 21:05:23)

哎呀，谢谢annie百忙之中抽出时间帮助小菜哈~感激不尽~！！抱拳啦

作者: babybearmm 时间: 2012-3-8 06:04
我的思路如下，欢迎讨论

1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"

2. diagramming（我在草稿纸上用圆圈里面的P代表premise，圆圈里面的C代表conclusion, qual=quality）
Premise: Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
就说good carp-er work是good carp qual的必要条件

就说分析出，作者得出结论需要assume一个causal relationship.
对于大多数weaken/strengthen题目，通常都不会直接针对premise（尤其是factual data），而是针对作者隐藏的assumption，从而削弱从premise推到conclusion的逻辑力度。

3. Prephrase. 上面我分析道，正确答案大概率是攻击：
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
这是一个causal relationship，于是想到bible讲的攻击causal relationship的5种方式.... Keep that in mind while reading through the answer choices.
....

这题其实很难预测答案，因为有5种方式削弱causal relationship，而这道题的正确答案属于第5种，就是抨击data interpretation。换句话说，D是说factual data不足以支撑causal relationship.
回头看我的笔记：
Premise: Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
关键问题出在：黄颜色背景的部分，是基于一个现代人的视角的data，也就是EXISTING carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
但是，尽管我笔记漏掉了"existing"这点，我也不会miss掉D选项，因为我分析道削弱因果的5种方式，其中有一种是data interpretation. 所以看到D，我就想: Yes, this choice is attacking the way the author interpretates the data

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论

[c2]无关

[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系

[c4]Support

[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。

[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

作者: ainiAnnie 时间: 2012-3-8 12:28

我的思路如下，欢迎讨论

1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"

2. diagramming（我在草稿纸上用圆圈里面的P代表premise，圆圈里面的C代表conclusion, qual=quality）
Premise: Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
就说good carp-er work是good carp qual的必要条件

就说分析出，作者得出结论需要assume一个causal relationship.
对于大多数weaken/strengthen题目，通常都不会直接针对premise（尤其是factual data），而是针对作者隐藏的assumption，从而削弱从premise推到conclusion的逻辑力度。

3. Prephrase. 上面我分析道，正确答案大概率是攻击：
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
这是一个causal relationship，于是想到bible讲的攻击causal relationship的5种方式.... Keep that in mind while reading through the answer choices.
....

这题其实很难预测答案，因为有5种方式削弱causal relationship，而这道题的正确答案属于第5种，就是抨击data interpretation。换句话说，D是说factual data不足以支撑causal relationship.
回头看我的笔记：
Premise: Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
关键问题出在：黄颜色背景的部分，是基于一个现代人的视角的data，也就是EXISTING carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
但是，尽管我笔记漏掉了"existing"这点，我也不会miss掉D选项，因为我分析道削弱因果的5种方式，其中有一种是data interpretation. 所以看到D，我就想: Yes, this choice is attacking the way the author interpretates the data

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 6:04:43)

谢谢baby姐如此详细的解答，由于我最近在做语法，逻辑只是过了一遍OG，没有做总结，相对于baby系统的思维过程，我的比较零散。
我一般做题的时候只列出直接的因果关系，即简单写为因→果，其余信息作为备用。
其实，我弱弱的觉得吧，中国人逻辑思维都不差，只要题目读懂了，就算不能预测出答案，看到选项也能选出来。。。。逻辑一定程度上是考阅读能力，相反最近准备语法的时候发现有些语法题需要用逻辑思维分析。。。。一些小心德体会。。。。

作者: tthere 时间: 2012-4-13 15:57

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 6:04:43)

BABY姐的分析又是这么到位！
不过我还有一个疑问，题目中说的质量不好的会被拆除，那只是针对1930年以前的建筑而言么？现在所看到的1930之后的建筑就不是留下的最好的？

作者: 亲亲麦小兜 时间: 2012-4-14 23:07
mark

作者: babybearmm 时间: 2012-4-15 02:58
这题又被Re出来了啊.....
要我现在看，之前我写的思路太繁琐。这题就一典型的survivorship bias.
survivorship bias is perhaps the most common type of sampling bias.
了解这个，类似题目就举一反三了。

作者: babybearmm 时间: 2012-4-15 03:06

-- by 会员 tthere (2012/4/13 15:57:13)

按照survivorship bias去理解哦。现存的建筑，都是经得起历史折腾的，1930年以前的建筑经受的历史风雨更多，因此能保存到现在的，肯定是质量好的。
数学上表述，survival rate (y)和time (x)的函数，是下降，然后趋于平滑的，趋近于y=0

类似的surviorship bias的例子非常常见，比如说：
你想研究某个factor (e.g.investment on R&D)对某类公司(e.g. Biotech)的某个指标（例如股价）的影响，你的研究方法是从现有NYSE的biotech sector中挑选历史至少5年的公司作为samples，对每个sample分别研究其历史变化规律。
那么，这项研究就存在survivorship bias，因为你只考虑到了现存的公司，你的样本中没有考虑这5年内倒闭的公司。这样一种sampling bias会对你的结果造成影响。

作者: bob9603 时间: 2012-4-15 10:11

-- by 会员 tthere (2012/4/13 15:57:13)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/4/15 3:06:40)

baby姐，我特意查了一下survivorship bias的中文意思，大概意思是：存活者偏差~（网络释义~）
那也就是说，原文认为出现现象的原因是质量~
而实际上，应该是时间问题，即，一个经历了long time 才留下来；另一个才只是现在时的东西~
通俗一点说：虽然都“活着”，但活了多久的是不一样的~而D间接的说出了由于时间问题而导致的“存活”现象~

是这个意思吧baby姐~

作者: babybearmm 时间: 2012-4-15 11:16
Exactly

Survivorship bias
Usually pertaining to fund manager or individual investor performance. Suppose we examined the performance over the last ten years of a group of managers that exist today. This performance is biased upwards because we are only considering those that survived for 10 years. That is, some dropped out because of poor performance. Hence, in evaluating performance, one has to be careful to include both the current and the managers that dropped out of the sample due to poor performance.
Copyright © 2011, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.
Survivorship Bias
In finance, the tendency to exclude failed companies or managers from performance evaluations or studies simply because they do not exist. Survivorship bias can result in skewed findings in a study and lead a casual reader to believe that a study shows a rosier picture than it really does. Mutual funds, especially smaller ones, are especially susceptible to survivorship bias. At any given time, 90% of mutual funds will claim to be in the top 25% of performers. Technically, they are correct, but only because the other 75% have closed or merged. Manager universe comparisons have also been criticized for exhibiting signs of survivorship bias. It is also known as survivor bias.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2011 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

作者: Victoriagirl 时间: 2013-9-9 13:18
看完此帖后，原来逻辑需要系统的复习，理清经脉，找出各个解决问题的方法，好好努力吧！baby姐大神啊

作者: 刚果弯弯 时间: 2014-1-9 16:54

ainiAnnie 发表于 2012-3-8 12:28
我的思路如下，欢迎讨论1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"2. dia ...

nn 可否解答一下为什么b中的可以accommodate more不能代表其质量更好呢？

作者: 刚果弯弯 时间: 2014-1-9 16:55

ainiAnnie 发表于 2012-3-8 12:28
我的思路如下，欢迎讨论1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"2. dia ...

如果非要说accomodate more不代表质量好我也可以说老房子被拆毁是因为外表太老太丑了不是因为质量不好啊？

作者: 刚果弯弯 时间: 2014-1-9 16:58

babybearmm 发表于 2012-4-15 11:16
Exactly        Survivorship biasUsually pertaining to fund manager or ...

大神nn 可否解答一下为什么b中的可以accommodate more不能代表其质量更好呢？质量不好又怎么能accommodate more呢？

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