Q40:
Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in Ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the plan’s chances for success?
A. The cost of raising soybeans has increased significantly over the past several years and is expected to continue to climb.
B. Tests of a newly developed, inexpensive pesticide have shown it to be both environmentally safe and effective against the insects that have infested cotton crops.
C. In the past several years, there has been no sharp increase in the demand for cotton and for goods made out of cotton.
D. Few consumers would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for cotton goods than they are now paying.
E. The species of insect that has infested cotton plants has never been known to attack soybean plants. 答案B, 我选C. If cotton demand is unlikely to increase sharply, yet there comes a sharp rise in the number of cotton growers (i.e. cotton supply), it is likely that the price of cotton will drop, weakening the argument. In B however, the new pesticide is only likely to enhance the growers' success because it helps them against cotton insects. It half supports the argument. 大家怎么想呢？
I think it's B
because of the inexpensive pesticide, the cost of cotton supply goew down, therefor, supply goes up. same demand, more supply, the price goes down.
B应该是答案。"虫害导致cotton price increase，然后......"，如果能制止虫害则没有以后的推论了。B正是隐含着这个条件。
当时我也在B和C之间徘徊过，但正如lawyer所说的，当我看到C说是past several years时，就肯定的把它踢开了。
insect infestation -----high price of cotton . ( causal relationship)
c refers to the condition of the past years ,however no evidence offered in the future. therefore is not appropriate.
C还有个错误在于即使其所说的DEMAND没变，但是价格仍然要受SUPPLY的影响，题目中的前提就是COTTON受虫害而导致了Supply下降，使得价格上升
C错误的原因我觉得其实就是我们习惯于根据常识而加入自己的主观意识来判断问题，而不是紧紧围绕题目客观的判断。
只要需求不上升，价格就不会上升，实际上这个一般规律的东西在本文并没有出现，本文没有说demand results to the rising of the price呀！当然是无关的了。
why not D?
这道题难道不是在反对前提吗? 有时觉得怎么有时反对前提就错,有时就对呢?
请指教
up
D.是一個固定誘惑選項，常常ets喜歡這樣出...
就是他常常會用few(少部份)的人、事、物來怎樣怎樣...其實是不容易weaken結論的。因為即便是如d所言，結論方向依舊可以不變
。
Q40:
Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in Ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the plan’s chances for success?
A. The cost of raising soybeans has increased significantly over the past several years and is expected to continue to climb.
B. Tests of a newly developed, inexpensive pesticide have shown it to be both environmentally safe and effective against the insects that have infested cotton crops.
C. In the past several years, there has been no sharp increase in the demand for cotton and for goods made out of cotton.
D. Few consumers would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for cotton goods than they are now paying.
E. The species of insect that has infested cotton plants has never been known to attack soybean plants. 答案B, 我选C. If cotton demand is unlikely to increase sharply, yet there comes a sharp rise in the number of cotton growers (i.e. cotton supply), it is likely that the price of cotton will drop, weakening the argument. In B however, the new pesticide is only likely to enhance the growers' success because it helps them against cotton insects. It half supports the argument. 大家怎么想呢？
能削弱农民是否会获得更高的利润，而不能削弱是否能获利。因为现在的价格已经增加了。
B是ETS设置的无关选项， In the past several years的信息和将来无关，而且该选项中没有给出任何进一步的信息说明将来的情况，该选项为典型的ETS迷惑选项。
D也是迷惑选项，个人认为其错误关键在于意愿不意原做事，不一定能影响结果，他不想做，就不做拉？所以，表意愿的东东，如没有进一步的假设，其结果应视为不确定，不能做为正确答案。再进一步说，如果根据意愿就能有确定结果，按ETS的偏好，哇，那是哲学，不是逻辑！
个人认为这题比较有价值的地方，倒是提醒大家对题干中附加前提或信息认真理解的重要性。题干一开始就提到Insect infestations in certain....可以想一想,ETS在寸字寸金的题干中给这个有什么用,不就是想考我们吗? 很多情况下,ETS正确答案的设置都是和题干中所给的附加前提的信息有关.
嗯嗯～
看来我的有关无关学的还是很不到位呀～
这道题难道不是在反对前提吗? 有时觉得怎么有时反对前提就错,有时就对呢?
请指教
我开始也有这个疑问，后来看到大家讨论明白了。
按照轩轩逻辑简图：虫害 －－》 棉花价格上升
后面讲了一堆背景和策略，让我们削弱：为什么想利用棉花高价赚钱的农民策略不对？（soybean真是个迷惑的东西，费了半天时间来看，这是少有的A与B比较，正确答案未涉及B的怪逻辑题）
1）所以如果是削弱前提的话，虫害应该独立作为一个前提。比如我把题目改一下：虫害是影响棉花质量的一大因素，人农民成天苦恼怎么除虫啊×※……％（一堆背景信息迷惑死你～）。考虑到棉花熟的快，市场价格本来就高，因此他们打算弃soybean投棉花……
你看，这里虫害就与推理棉花价格无关了，从而因价格导致农民raise cotton的推理也与虫害无关了。此时若选项从虫害着手来削弱，就是肯定错的“削弱前提”。
而这里虫害到棉花价格到策略因价格而制定，有两个推理过程。这里考削弱第一个推理过程。有点模糊，难！
2）那么会问了，为什么不削弱第二个推理过程？
即使把D扯上来，说没啥消费者愿意为高价棉花买单，但还是有人愿意的。无法削弱plan's chances for success，因为农民还是可以短期赚到钱的，直到所有消费者都不肯买单为止。
所以，有虫害这个大前提在，无论从第二个推理过程怎么削弱，都不及“快刀斩乱麻”，一刀子从虫害问题把它给否了来的痛快～（好多CR题都是削弱第一层推理，大家做题时可以注意一下：）
罗嗦了这么多，不知道有没有解释清楚？
很不服气！！支持D
B有个严重的逻辑缺陷！它需要一个“架桥”的假定支持，就是这个仅仅是test的玩意被使用在了practice了！即 存在这个药＝》实际使用了＝》虫害控制了＝》价格下降了＝》赚不到钱（最后一环也是缺失的，见下述）。
楼上的人的推论都是建立在“虫害控制了”基础上的，事实是这个根本不存在。说开了，“有一种药非常有效，大家都会用，很方便，很便宜，保证要到病除，绝对灵，就是棒。。。。。”和“虫害被药搞定了”是两个完全无关的issue。
D确实是很好的选项。结论的目标是“increase income”，学经济的都知道棉花价格高，并不代表收入增加。“有价无市”！楼上的如此批判D
"即使把D扯上来，说没啥消费者愿意为高价棉花买单，但还是有人愿意的。无法削弱plan's chances for success，因为农民还是可以短期赚到钱的，直到所有消费者都不肯买单为止。"
其实D说得很到位"few"，对应题目中”many soybean grower"。就算如上面老兄说得有人赚到钱，是不能实现大家都赚钱的。所以非常好的削弱了原文的计划！
对结论没影响
个人认为这题比较有价值的地方，倒是提醒大家对题干中附加前提或信息认真理解的重要性。题干一开始就提到Insect infestations in certain....可以想一想,ETS在寸字寸金的题干中给这个有什么用,不就是想考我们吗? 很多情况下,ETS正确答案的设置都是和题干中所给的附加前提的信息有关.
我看到lawyer 在线了.
开心得快不行了!
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |