ChaseDream

标题: 请教一道GWD上的题！/GWD-3-32 [打印本页]
作者: bbanbao    时间: 2004-10-6 20:39
标题: 请教一道GWD上的题！/GWD-3-32

GWD第三套题里的V的32题


In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.






Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?






  1. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

  2. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

  3. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

  4. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

  5. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

这个题是选A还是C呢？我看了两套GWD的答案，一个是A一个是C，到底选哪个好呢？我觉得应该是A，请大家指点！


作者: shuoshuqi    时间: 2004-10-8 00:03

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=54996

参考一下吧

作者: swlfx    时间: 2005-7-30 15:26
选C。
作者: tigerlulu74    时间: 2005-11-7 23:54

Newspaper editorial:




In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.





Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?






  1. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

  2. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

  3. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

  4. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

  5. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.


应该选A


本文前提：参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。


结论：政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。


取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设（支持）。


A取非：不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率）取非后，使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。


C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。（注意：not less两个否定。）违反前提（而非削弱前提），怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢？


且C取非后：参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。）取非后，使原推理过程绝对成立，必不为支持（假设）选项。

作者: steveyangxt    时间: 2005-12-19 21:59
以下是引用tigerlulu74在2005-11-7 23:54:00的发言：

Newspaper editorial:




In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.





Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?






  1. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

  2. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

  3. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

  4. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

  5. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.


应该选A


本文前提：参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。


结论：政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。


取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设（支持）。


A取非：不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率）取非后，使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。


C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。（注意：not less两个否定。）违反前提（而非削弱前提），怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢？


且C取非后：参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。）取非后，使原推理过程绝对成立，必不为支持（假设）选项。


支持

作者: gre200011    时间: 2006-1-10 11:05

经典的LAWYER 排除它因的ASSUMPTION题啊.


(C)


因果型结论：ASSUMPTION的方法包括：A。不是其他原因或可能导致该结果。B。结合因果：或有因有果或无果无因。C。因果没颠倒。D显示因果关系的资料是准确。


再看(A), 取非, 结论还是可能成立，


（Ａ）取非，意思是:不TAKE COURSE 还是可能(LIKELY) DETER CRIME; 但是如果take course 比dont take course能够在程度上,更加DETER CRIME,结论还是成立.

作者: aztheroe    时间: 2006-4-2 03:15
以下是引用tigerlulu74在2005-11-7 23:54:00的发言：

Newspaper editorial:




In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.





Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?






  1. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

  2. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

  3. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

  4. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

  5. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.


应该选A


本文前提：参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。


结论：政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。


取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设（支持）。


A取非：不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率）取非后，使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。


C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。（注意：not less两个否定。）违反前提（而非削弱前提），怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢？


且C取非后：参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。）取非后，使原推理过程绝对成立，必不为支持（假设）选项。



如果C不成立，那么就是说参加选择参加课程的罪犯可能本来就是那些以后不会再犯罪的人，这样题干里面的结论（参加上课可以降低以后的犯罪率）就不成立了，因为并不是上课导致的参加上课的人以后犯罪率低，而是那些人本来就不倾向于再犯。所以只有C成立，才可以排除这种情况，支持题干中不上课导致再犯率上升的说法。所以答案当然是C。


A是无关选项。

作者: aztheroe    时间: 2006-4-2 03:29

关于A再说清楚点，A是不可以取非的，就是说A成立，并不等于A取非以后成立，他们不是一个逻辑体系的，所以A和题干是完全没有关系的一句话。


假如A选项是现在这句话的取非，那选项就不好选了，呵呵。

作者: xlt6200    时间: 2010-8-9 20:35
我觉得选A还是C的关键是，argument的内容到底是政府决定取消监狱中的大学课程，还是主编认为政府取消不能减少犯罪率。如果argument是前者，那么假设是C选项：参不参加大学课程对犯罪率没有影响；如果argument是后者，假设是A选项：参加大学课程才能够阻止再次犯罪是假设。
请问各位牛牛，我分析的对么？？
作者: jiushiheye    时间: 2010-8-12 17:53
ss
作者: 沙失西州    时间: 2010-8-20 21:46
以下是引用tigerlulu74在2005-11-7 23:54:00的发言：

Newspaper editorial:



In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.




Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?




    Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

    Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

    The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

    Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

    The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.



应该选A

本文前提：参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。

结论：政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。

取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设（支持）。

A取非：不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率）取非后，使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。

C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。（注意：not less两个否定。）违反前提（而非削弱前提），怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢？

且C取非后：参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。（那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。）取非后，使原推理过程绝对成立，必不为支持（假设）选项。


如果C不成立，那么就是说参加选择参加课程的罪犯可能本来就是那些以后不会再犯罪的人，这样题干里面的结论（参加上课可以降低以后的犯罪率）就不成立了，因为并不是上课导致的参加上课的人以后犯罪率低，而是那些人本来就不倾向于再犯。所以只有C成立，才可以排除这种情况，支持题干中不上课导致再犯率上升的说法。所以答案当然是C。

A是无关选项。
-- by 会员 aztheroe (2006/4/2 3:15:00)


不同意，C中的after being released这个短语很关键，说明了被释放后选择上课的人犯罪的可能性不比不上课的人的低，而不是说上课之前
作者: 沙失西州    时间: 2010-8-20 22:08
更正自己一下，关键还是after being released这个短语，如果修饰commit crimes，那么C对，如果修饰were，那么C错
但A肯定是不好的，因为有anyone这个绝对词
综合起来，尽管我还是认为C有些歧义，相对来说，从时态的逻辑意思来看，C还是更正确一些
作者: eilleenliu    时间: 2010-9-7 22:41
选项A里面的anyone是不是有问题？
我同意C，C里面一直用inmate这个词~比anyone更好吧
作者: wangcaroline    时间: 2010-10-21 22:22
不过国外的论坛都趋向于A
http://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critical-reasoning/15993-another-2-crs.html
作者: stellachen15    时间: 2011-3-22 15:23
我觉得选A还是C的关键是，argument的内容到底是政府决定取消监狱中的大学课程，还是主编认为政府取消不能减少犯罪率。如果argument是前者，那么假设是C选项：参不参加大学课程对犯罪率没有影响；如果argument是后者，假设是A选项：参加大学课程才能够阻止再次犯罪是假设。
请问各位牛牛，我分析的对么？？
-- by 会员 xlt6200 (2010/8/9 20:35:22)



我同意你的看法。因为我到现在还是弄不清楚这个ARGUMENT到底是指政府的这个决策，还是反对人的意见
作者: 木易爱青    时间: 2011-5-28 10:45
选C, C作为assumption补出前提，文中说government不让inmates解释大学课程是错误的，因为大学课程有提高inmates素质的作用可防止他们出狱后再次犯罪，
而补出的C说的是前提——那些选择上课的人本来的犯罪率不会比其他inmates高，也就是说起点一样，前提相同比较才准确
作者: peterxie210    时间: 2011-6-17 02:57
标题: 正确答案是C
我在模考试遇到这道题了，官方给的答案是C
作者: mushimushi    时间: 2011-7-24 09:28
选C的直接解释:
C的原意是 选择上课（而还未上课的人）不见得犯罪率比其他人低。也就是说光有上课的心并不能降低再犯罪率，必须上课才能降低再犯罪率。现在如果剥夺了这些想上课人的上课机会，那再犯罪率肯定会增加。所以必须得给这些人上课。
作者: gsj677    时间: 2012-10-7 05:33
原文的结论是说上课造成了犯人重回社会之后不容易犯罪

而C说，这些上课的人并不是本来就已经不容易犯罪的人，如果对C取非，就是这些上课的本来就是重回社会不容易犯罪的人，那么上课造成犯人重回社会不犯罪的作用就被削弱了

如果文章的结论是A造成了B，那么其中一个假设便是:并不是B造成了A
作者: BonheurL    时间: 2012-10-23 13:39
C选项注意already的存在，不能简单理解成not less likely，如果想表达这个意思也应该是no less likely而不是not
原文argument的结论是在刑满释放后，那些上过college-level course的人比没上过的犯罪可能性小
C选项是一个典型的排除他因assumption，准确的翻译是：那些上过college-level course的刑满释放者本身就不是那些比其他inmate有着低犯罪可能性的人，这个assumption加强了题干的结论，说这些人的低犯罪可能性是college-level course形成的，不是这些人本身就有着地犯罪可能性，加强了college-level course在降低犯罪率上的作用
作者: kittywangyijun    时间: 2012-11-5 05:59
了解！！
作者: tudouchaoren90    时间: 2013-3-17 13:42
我的理解：
A选项双重否定改陈述句后就是：在prison中参加College－level courses有可能能够阻止anyone的犯罪倾向。
原文中since后面的意思：在被释放后，参加过courses的overally犯罪更少。

conclusion：A选项与原文信息重复。
在help题型中应该不合适。

不知道对不对，求牛牛们指教，many thanks！
作者: helen3615    时间: 2013-5-21 23:06
BonheurL 发表于 2012-10-23 13:39
C选项注意already的存在，不能简单理解成not less likely，如果想表达这个意思也应该是no less likely而不 ...

今天做GWD看到这道题，觉得这个解释最清楚易懂。
要比较上过课和没上过课的人的犯罪率
要保证两组人在上课之前的犯罪的概率是相同的
我觉得可以像实验组对照组的思路
排除他因
作者: Aquaflow    时间: 2014-6-10 22:18
应该选C！！！

A只能说明不参加大学科不能减少犯罪，但是不能证明参加了就能减少犯罪；
C的意思是，那些即将要参加课程的人（暗含：在参加课程之前）并没有比之后不会参加课程的人更有少犯罪的迹象---这就证明/加强了，是监狱提供的大学课起了作用，make了difference, 使得犯人们更少犯罪了。

变量类比---想要证明一个方案在实施后确实比实施前奏效了，就要证明这个方案所要impose on的主题的两类人在被实施这个方案以前都是一样/等同的，这样才能证明是这个方案奏效，起作用了。.
作者: AnnieFFish    时间: 2016-10-31 16:12
我觉得楼上的变量类比那个思想真的好好！
作者: 逆旅duckweed    时间: 2018-8-14 12:06
BonheurL 发表于 2012-10-23 13:39
C选项注意already的存在，不能简单理解成not less likely，如果想表达这个意思也应该是no less likely而不 ...

我觉得这个already确实是理解句意所在！
C强调了college-level course的作用
总觉得A跳出了逻辑范畴
作者: Jennyaaa    时间: 2018-9-11 13:28
我想问一下，A能不能这么理解： 不能让他们去上课这个威慑，不足以打消大家有二次犯罪的想法。
因为前提是：他们要恶化监狱的环境==》 恶化的惩罚之一：不让他们上课 ==》大家希望能够接受教育，所以会想要减少二次犯罪，就像是大家如果觉得监狱的环境好，大家就会去犯罪，因为环境都一样，犯罪进去了也很舒服。
但是如果环境恶化的话，就打消了大家犯罪的心==》因为不想进去！

但是A是没有办法得到结论的，因为文中想表达的结论是，接受了教育的人，因为思想进步了，所以打消了犯罪的心。
C这样就把前提和结论连在一起了。因为C中，大家在学习前，思想（会二次犯罪的想法）是等同的，所以==》可以根据大家接受教育后犯罪率的高低来得出结论，因为没有别的因素可以影响了！
唯一能打消他们犯罪的因素就是： 接不接受教育！！

不知道这样对不对。
作者: gshlucas    时间: 2019-9-20 13:38
A选项感觉只是对conclusion的重述而已。



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3