Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
答案选b，没有问题。
谁能不能翻译一下题目，没看明白。谢谢！
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
答案选b，没有问题。
谁能不能翻译一下题目，没看明白。谢谢！
MM, 我试着翻译的,凑合看吧. 刑事学者:一些立法者认为应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后又犯重罪的罪犯终身监禁. 这些立法者认为这个政策会剧烈减少犯罪,因为这可以使那些证明可能犯罪的人永远地远离街市.然而,这个推理忽略了那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老朽到很少能再次犯罪. 让这些罪犯充斥在监狱与我我们的愿望相反, 因为这样监禁年轻的罪犯的能力会收到限制, 这些年轻的罪犯占严重犯罪的大比例.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration
in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that
generalization does not apply.
有谁知道E是什么意思呀? 怎么这么怪异??
thanks NN, clear now/
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
我怎么觉得 main conclusion 是上面 highlight 出来的部分呢？
请NN帮忙分析一下到底哪部分是全文结论。
MM没理解那句话。
Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime.
黄色高亮的是一个定从，体会一下
main conclusin就是第二个黑脸，把那个opposit of the edsired effect paraphrase一下就可以了
I have the same question as billion.
I think the advocation by some legislators is one view. The argument "they argue" gives the supported reasoning. Then the argument said that the reasoning is not right. I think this sentence "this reasoning overlooks is that ..." is the conclusion that objects the previous view. but the sentence "Filling..." is just the supported reason again.
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
我对这个答案选b，没有问题。但我不明白这篇文章的逻辑推理。
第一句话：一些立法者认为应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后第三次又犯罪的罪犯终身监禁.
第三句话：然而,这个推理忽略了那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老朽到很少能再次犯罪.
最后句话：让这些罪犯充斥在监狱与我我们的愿望相反, 因为这样监禁年轻的罪犯的能力会收到限制, 这些年轻的罪犯占严重犯罪的大比例.
由第一句话可知只有犯第3次罪的人才终身监禁。第三句说老家伙们不可能再犯第3次罪。所以我觉得这些老家伙们不可能再进监狱。可文中最后句话说这些老家伙还是可能进监狱的。我没看明白这是怎么推出来的，谁能指点一下。谢谢！
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
我对这个答案选b，没有问题。但我不明白这篇文章的逻辑推理。
第一句话：一些立法者认为应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后第三次又犯罪的罪犯终身监禁.
第三句话：然而,这个推理忽略了那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老朽到很少能再次犯罪.
最后句话：让这些罪犯充斥在监狱与我我们的愿望相反, 因为这样监禁年轻的罪犯的能力会收到限制, 这些年轻的罪犯占严重犯罪的大比例.
由第一句话可知只有犯第3次罪的人才终身监禁。第三句说老家伙们不可能再犯第3次罪。所以我觉得这些老家伙们不可能再进监狱。可文中最后句话说这些老家伙还是可能进监狱的。我没看明白这是怎么推出来的，谁能指点一下。谢谢！
同问~~
如上的红色原文到底是个什么意思,,,?
是说:"老家伙们已经没可能再进监狱"了的话,和后面"老家伙占用了监狱的资源"难道不矛盾么?
help~~~~~~严重不明白~~
请问E错在哪里？
thanks a lot
我觉得此题应该选E！
people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime
这句话的意思是，那些人不太可能犯第四次罪，注意表达：more than one subsequent crime。所以，把这些犯三次罪的德人盼终身监禁没有必要。
看了半天讨论还是没看懂。
第一个bf是legislator的conclusion啊，c答案是说main conclusion of the argument
e为什么不对啊？？？
同问。。。虽然B肯定没有错，但E好像也没问题呀？
是的，同意LS，刚开始我也想选B，后来看到E觉得更具体，况且后面说：
is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
说明对于younger 来说是不适用的 。请指教！
up
lawyer顶一下，第一次选B，第二次选E了。
我觉得可能的原因是:题目中有一个however，所以选项中应该正确的表达出支持和反对两种意思，而E显然没有。但是题设中有一个Filling our prisons with such individuals
would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect， such individuals对着E选项的 a group of exceptional cases正合适呀
These legislators argue that 表示 第一部分是个 结论
however 表示转折 作者不同意
第二部分 后面 since 表示前面那句 结论
为了节约时间 BF题只看部分呢，这样可行不？
今天第二次做这题，觉得lawyer说的太好了。！！
是的，同意LS，刚开始我也想选B，后来看到E觉得更具体，况且后面说：
is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
说明对于younger 来说是不适用的 。请指教！
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
注意后半部分，第二个指出一些特例，而原文中只是一个例子、
关于B/E之争,我第一次选了B, review时选了E, 仔细看了一下, 还是赞同B,原因如下:
第一个BF是 legislators 的观点, 通过紧接着的however可以知道, 作者是反对该观点的.
作者的观点在however之后, 所以第二个BF是作者的conclusion.
第二个BF前面那句话是例子,而接下来的BF不是,所以E错
open to discuss
DING
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |