花了半个小时,终于明白了一点:不能太绝对!
195. A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.
(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.
(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.
我总认为A,B,D都可以算是ASSUMPTION,都合理.想了半天,发现提干中"many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors"和A中:"...least some wealthy individuals would not donate ..."是相一致的.
而B中:"...provides the only source of ..."和D中:"...are the only individuals who are the only individuals who ..."说法太绝对了,不和题目中的说法一致.
所以,明白了ETS出题还是有一定讲究的:不能太绝对!
他说的是哪道题呀？---偶没上过XDF的说
they otherwise would have.
短语怎么解释啊，当时就这句没搞清而选了b
they otherwise would have.
短语怎么解释啊，当时就这句没搞清而选了b
我认为是:否则他们就会(donate much money to charitable and educational institutions)---被省略掉了.
我认为是:否则他们就会(donate much money to charitable and educational institutions)---被省略掉了.
他说的是哪道题呀？---偶没上过XDF的说
又上了一課呀
結論，選項有some，原文若是也有some就對
選項中有only，但題目若是沒有，就不能選
学习体会要拿出来和大家分享，才更有意义！这也就是我爱CD的原因呀。呵呵
wrong, 请注意结论前的THEREFORE，这才是题眼，不是绝对不绝对的问题，B和其它的选项或者可以推出结论，但对题中的论证是无关的，这道题是要求论证过程的假设，不是对结论的假设。
楼上的写的太又道理了,我仔细看了一下题目,确实是对文章论证过程的假设,而不是对文章结论的假设,大家一定要注意
个人认为，这道题不是绝不绝对的问题，关键在于对选项取非后能否削弱结论。
咋一看B,D都很正确，但取非后就能发现他们不一定能削弱结论。而A不一样，A非一定能削弱结论。
同意楼上的。
A取非：
"at lease some wealthy individuals would not donate" 取非后为 "all wealthy individuals would donate".
这种取非好像蛮有难度的嘛，我做这个选项的时候就只把not去掉了，但意思理解却按照all来理解了。看来功力还不到！
大家看看，还有什么类似的取非不仅仅是去掉not的？
看了半天，偶来说一句：
楼主的理解方向是正确的，但是没有说到关键点上。
为什么B是错误的？先看看OG的解释：
Choice B is not assumed: the argument need only assume that many institutions depend heavily, but not necessarily exclusively, on donations from such individuals.
里面高亮的部分看清楚了！这个才是ETS评判的标准所在，也即：Assumption必须是“必要的”，不会导致原文的逻辑有问题。
而这里的B是说得太过了，不是必要的！！！因此不能选！！！
真理再向前一步，便是谬误！
hitler999
EXACTLY！
(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
文章中并没有说Wealthy individuals 是only一個來源阿的 一个对联邦税法建议的改变 将会去除对捐赠给慈善与教育机构的人所得税减免 如果此项建议被采纳的话 富人们将不在享有此项减免 因此 很多的慈善及教育机构将被迫减少服务 并且有些机构会被迫关门
个人认为，这道题不是绝不绝对的问题，关键在于对选项取非后能否削弱结论。
咋一看B,D都很正确，但取非后就能发现他们不一定能削弱结论。而A不一样，A非一定能削弱结论。
同意！
做这个题时，看完题目都没取非，直接在B和D之间犹豫，因为仅有来源没有了肯定关门啊。但读了几遍OG，又看了CD上的帖子，才恍然大悟！
其实og说得很明白，解释a为什么对，b为什么不对都用了取非削弱！a取非，富人们还是donate，那么什么减少服务，关门之类的都不存在。
b取非，由于减税而捐款的富人不是唯一来源，也就是说有其他来源，比如说中等收入水平的人，他们的捐款可能因为不减税了而减少，也可能没减少，就是说不一定，所以不能推出服务没减少，不会关门的结论，也就是不能削弱。
所以a其实是唯一答案（从取非削弱这个方法来看比较容易理解）
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |