标题: 请问weaken这类题到底是weaken前提还是结论啊 [打印本页] 作者: 觞释 时间: 2012-3-5 22:32 标题: 请问weaken这类题到底是weaken前提还是结论啊 RT,以前上xdf说不能直接否定前提,但现在又看到一些说法说前提站不住脚,结论也就不存在了,就达到weaken的效果....很晕啊现在,是不是削弱前提和结论都可以呢????作者: kevingod 时间: 2012-3-5 23:42
LZ能给个weaken前提的例子么,我见的基本上都是weaken结论的作者: 觞释 时间: 2012-3-6 09:37
1.An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic. The U.S. Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above? 首先,读题干,知道这是weaken题。请立刻在脑海中想到答案就是最有效“反对”前提(后文均用“因为”代替)的一个。按此思路,我们就要找到“因为”。 原文的意思: 因为——某团体组织人在非战时进行对抗B国的军事训练;并且,法律禁止美国公民在非战争状态下参与对他国的军事对抗行为; 所以——该组织应被调查和指控。 思路:我们要反对“因为”,那么答案一定要对“因为”的内容进行质疑。由于这里的“因为”有两句,所以为我们筛选质疑哪个“因为”增加了难度。但实际上,我们要质疑的不是法律,所以,第二个因为就可以排除在答案之外。因此,你就要去在5个选项中找存在对第一个因为产生质疑的选项。 答案: a. The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody and escalating civil war. b. Diplomatic relation between US and Balaland were severed last year. c. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the US goes to war against Balaland. d. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens, but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad. e. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched. 很显然,c恰好是用“该团体只是训练人员已备战时使用,并非是在非战争状态下对B国进行军事对抗”反对了第一个因为,所以直接选择就好了。 当然,我们最好也去看一下其他选项,以防备自己的疏漏。a \b选项不能质疑,反而使支持,c在文章中没提到,e和第一个因为不相干。而且原文第一句就说了是investigation,并没有错。因此,只有c正确。
这个题,讲解时就是直接否定前提的,是不是否定前提和结论都可以啊?作者: kevingod 时间: 2012-3-6 12:53
前提:The U.S. Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. 结论:we should bring charges against these fanatics, “who are in open defiance of the law” 结论后半句(加引号的)说他们违反法律了,但其实并不违反,原因在C中阐述了,而且C也并没有否定前提,只是说现有前提不能推出该结论。 这类weaken题型属于“原文前提和结论关系不密切:正确选项直接WEAKEN结论”作者: 觞释 时间: 2012-3-7 20:23
哦哦哦,这样啊,那直接否定前提的选项可以选么??因为我觉得“前提都不对,由此得出来的结论也就站不住脚了,然后就weaken了”这逻辑挺对的.....作者: kevingod 时间: 2012-3-7 22:41
前提是题目的条件,是不能否定的作者: laodudu3 时间: 2012-5-23 09:51
题眼:to fight。训练≠战备训练。有耐心的可看下面展开:)