[求助]GWD-6-38 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

这个ASSUMPTION , 我根本就不知道它在考什么! 就感觉提干和题目甚至没什么联系不知道为什么!! 把E取非结论是能不成立但我就是觉得特别的不舒服特别不舒服不知道是哪个线搭错了 NN 把我分析下每个选择和题目的关系吧! ( LAWYER ,你在吗?) xiexie le

原文推理：因为7个小公司没钱更换生产线满足政府的新规定，所以只有3个大公司能生存。

E说7个小公司现在生产的产品都不符合政府的这个新规定。取非。如果有小公司现在生产的产品符合新规定，就不用改生产线，也就不只3个公司能生存。所以为假设

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.

(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.

The passage argues that charitable and educational institutions, part of whose income comes from donations, would be negatively affected if wealthy individuals could not count such donations as deductions from their income. The question asks you to identify an assumption of the argument-that is, something that has to be true in order for the evidence presented to establish the conclusion.

Choice A is the best answer, since if this statement is false, all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now. In that case, the evidence used in the argument provides no support for the conclusion.

lawyer: 如果碰到这种的假设题你不用GAP来理解你该如何理解呢

前提是讲政府规范，结论是小企业和大企业的生存。里面的线形关系存在于：

很明显原文假设了政府规范－小企业不能生存，大企业能生存之间的逻辑连线；

再依据原文的内容since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications,我们可以看出原文的推理：不能转换生产线－不能生存，那么也就是(1)假设了老生产线不合标准。only the three large companies 能生存，说明(2)假设了这三家大企业能按新的标准转换生产线。

再看选项，B,C,D我们能一眼就排除，看A， not regulate the manufacture of the product和原文完全无关，A是无关选项。E符合假设(1)，因此是答案。

lawyer 你这样的解题思路明确易操作我这样的做法有时能发现GAP 做起来容易有时发现不了就头疼了

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.

首先一点 regulate the manufacture of the product，和原文还是有点出入的，原文说的是regulates the industry，发布某个规范要让企业遵守这个规范。与控制这个产品的生产有一点点区别。

其次。原文的assumption是必要条件。你这么一改变成了充分条件了。这个在GMAT假设题中应该不会出现这种答案。

昨天发完这个求助就去睡觉了今早起来看到帖子已经到9楼了呵呵

这T 我没理解好可能是因为里面有2个ASSUMPTION ，我在想E 的时候就想另一个弄的糊涂了

TO PAOPAO，A按你的改法也不是答案。因为原文的推理是在规定实行的基础上讨论的。如果没实行，也不存在只有三个公司能保持经营的问题。

TO BOBO，任何一个必要型假设的结论，都有很多个假设，答案只是其中的一个。

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-8 20:11:00的发言：

TO PAOPAO，A按你的改法也不是答案。因为原文的推理是在规定实行的基础上讨论的。如果没实行，也不存在只有三个公司能保持经营的问题。

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.

如果取非 some of of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.也就否定了结论

therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

我觉得原文中的推理:政策执行==>only 大公司be able to remain in business

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.

whether or not go out of business 和是否有能力remain in business 是有区别的. 所以A 经改写还是不好.

感觉选项E，None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.表达不是特别恰当，因为感觉match不match是specifications之间的事。是不是改为这样比较好呢：None of the specifications (the seven small companies currently uses to manufacture the product) would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.

是不是犯了否定前提的错误？可是我发现这个好像很难判断阿，有时候否定前提似乎又是对的

但这是一道假设，如果能劝阻，的确，什么都不存在了，这道题也不存在啦；所以，C是一个无关选项，也可以说取非的话反对的是前提，削弱无效

Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications. If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere. In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

因为，如果如果在政府没有规定时，三个大企业就因为其它原因倒了，他们就不会remain in business 了，所以前提是没规定时就不会倒。

以下是引用DianaCao在2005-8-7 20:48:00的发言：

lawyer,

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.

Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.

Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.

None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.

我觉得这题宣A,

因为，如果如果在政府没有规定时，三个大企业就因为其它原因倒了，他们就不会remain in business 了，所以前提是没规定时就不会倒。

请指教。谢谢

以下是引用windweed在2004-12-24 23:24:00的发言：

原文结论:

我觉得原文中的推理:政策执行==>only 大公司be able to remain in business

A即使改成楼上的说法也是无关:

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.

whether or not go out of business 和是否有能力remain in business 是有区别的. 所以A 经改写还是不好.

A has been consistent with the premise: Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.

以下是引用潜龙勿用在2005-8-15 9:07:00的发言：

A has been consistent with the premise: Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-8 8:15:00的发言：

原文推理：因为7个小公司没钱更换生产线满足政府的新规定，所以只有3个大公司能生存。

我想了半天前提到底应该是政府提出新要求还是小公司没钱,原来是两者皆有...

原文推理：因为7个小公司没钱更换生产线满足政府的新规定，所以只有3个大公司能生存。

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-8 8:15:00的发言：

原文推理：因为7个小公司没钱更换生产线满足政府的新规定，所以只有3个大公司能生存。

小公司现在的产品符合新规范，就不用改生产线？可以直接这么推导吗？

选B 不正确，就算小公司改造生产线花的钱和大公司的一样多，甚至比大公司少，由于自身规模，它还是会倒闭的。