ChaseDream

标题: OG 83题选项疑问！！跪求大神解释！ [打印本页]

作者: SilverGrin 时间: 2012-3-9 07:24
标题: OG 83题选项疑问！！跪求大神解释！
83. Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting theresults of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year thanit had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at majorresearch institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, soit is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline inavailability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every articlebased on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted forpublication last year actually was published.
(B) The averagetime scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined
over the last several years.
(C) The number ofphysics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle acceleratorscan be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changesin the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihoodthat articles concerning particle accelerator research will be accepted forpublication.

这道题目本身选项是E没什么好说的，完全赞同。但是我认为D选项也对。文章的逻辑是这样的，文章发表的少是因为加速器的不够。可以weaken的方向有很多，比如文章的发表少是其他原因，而不是加速器，也就是E选项，那难道不可以是通过解释不是因为加速器少，所以文章发表的少来weaken吗，也就是D选项。请指教！

作者: 子弹青春 时间: 2012-3-9 09:11
LZ, I think you donot really understand what D mean.

D says one particle accelerators can be used for several times in a year, from which we can not get the information about the changes of the number of particle accelerators.

So D is an unrelated option.

作者: patrizioren 时间: 2012-3-23 17:13
我也想请教这题~
D选项OG给出的解释是：if the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer.
从这个解释来看，貌似不是unrelated，这个D选项就等于是说： the low nubmer of articles was NOT due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators ,这我认为应该是weaken的一种
请指教啊~

作者: patrizioren 时间: 2012-3-23 17:14

LZ, I think you donot really understand what D mean.

D says one particle accelerators can be used for several times in a year, from which we can not get the information about the changes of the number of particle accelerators.

So D is an unrelated option.

-- by 会员子弹青春 (2012/3/9 9:11:06)

我也想请教这题~
D选项OG给出的解释是：if the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer.
从这个解释来看，貌似不是unrelated，这个D选项就等于是说： the low nubmer of articles was NOT due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators ,这我认为应该是weaken的一种
请指教啊~

作者: reebe 时间: 2012-3-23 17:50
我来说说我的个人理解哈：这个题目的逻辑链核心是：加速器的减少（A）→文章的减少（B）。其中B是事实，A是推理。削弱这个argument就是攻击A，即不是A导致的B。D选项说的是加速器可以用于多数的实验，那么文章的数目就不一定减少，这个推翻的是事实B，违背了出题者的原意。

作者: wangxinlin 时间: 2012-5-14 20:49
同意，我认为是加速器减少、文章减少都是事实。我们要反驳的是加速期减少并不是导致文章减少的原因。

作者: qiaowin88637 时间: 2012-5-16 16:42
事实：物理学刊物上，particle accelerators的论文数量去年比前年少。前年很多particle accelerators都不能服务在维修。
推理：particle accelerators的论文数量去年比前年少was due to decline in availability of particle accelerators.
【事实推理X型】事实A→推理B，需要直接推翻B
取非：particle accelerators的论文数量去年比前年少的原因was not due to decline in availability of particle accelerators.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?

(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
排除其他因素，加强B
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
暗示论文数量不应该减少，与原文事实不一致。不能推翻B
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
排除其他因素，加强B
(D)

article accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
暗示论文数量不应该减少，与原文事实不一致。不能推翻B
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
推翻B 。他因造成

作者: wendydou 时间: 2012-5-19 12:32
我觉得应该是D 选项没有更加直接的WEAKEN。accelerators can be used more -->more experiments-->有可能more articles（只是有可能more,并不能确定used more 就能得到more article）由于结论的不确定性和间接性导致D错误··略述己见，如有不对请大牛们给予指正·

作者: patrizioren 时间: 2012-5-19 14:33
前几天看到manhattan上面的一句话，我觉得可以解释DE两个选项的区别：weaken和strengthen两类题目的正确选项，ｄｏ　ｎｏｔ　ｒｅｑｕｉｒｅ　ａｎｙ　ＡＤＤＩＴＩＯＮＡＬ　ａｓｓｕｍｐｔｉｏｎ，如果某个选项依赖于其他的逻辑假设，则力度不够，错
题目中：
(D)

article accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.－－这句话我觉得并非如ＯＧ解释所言，一定会导致ａｒｔｉｃｌｅ上升。
用数学来解释，假设每个加速器的负荷为同时进行５０个实验，原来共有５０台加速器。在题干允许范围内，做出三种假设：
ＩＦ１：原来每个加速器都是满负荷工作，共出文章２５００篇。则加速器数量一减少，论文必然减少。
ＩＦ２：原来每个加速器只承担一个实验，共出５０篇文章。则即使加速器数量减少到１台，文章数量依然不会减少
ＩＦ３：原来每个加速器承担２５个实验，共出１２５０篇文章。如果加速器数量减少到１台，文章数量还是会大大减少的
综上，Ｄ的效力取决于３种ＩＦ假设对其的限定，只有取到类似于ＩＦ２的ａｓｓｕｍｐｔｉｏｎ，我们才可以说加速器数量减少对于文章数量无影响

反观Ｅ选项，则不需要任何额外的逻辑假设，故为正确答案

作者: maxiv 时间: 2012-8-16 01:09

我来说说我的个人理解哈：这个题目的逻辑链核心是：加速器的减少（A）→文章的减少（B）。其中B是事实，A是推理。削弱这个argument就是攻击A，即不是A导致的B。D选项说的是加速器可以用于多数的实验，那么文章的数目就不一定减少，这个推翻的是事实B，违背了出题者的原意。

-- by 会员 reebe (2012/3/23 17:50:57)

这个回答精确简练

不能否定作者的结论

作者: icewaterkira 时间: 2013-2-15 18:12

同意，我认为是加速器减少、文章减少都是事实。我们要反驳的是加速期减少并不是导致文章减少的原因。

-- by 会员 wangxinlin (2012/5/14 20:49:41)

我觉得这个说法是正确的。要weaken 的是这个逻辑链而不是任何一个事实

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