ChaseDream

标题: (34655-!-item-!-188;#058&007580) [打印本页]

作者: MAC910808 时间: 2013-7-20 23:06
标题: (34655-!-item-!-188;#058&007580)

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication that unemployment is abnormally high.

(B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.

(C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.

(D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.

(E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those without jobs is even higher.
这一题完全没有思路，怎么破？？？不知道R与S的对话之间究竟有什么关系。答案A又是怎么和题目联系起来的？求解释！！！问题中是问S能推出什么Conclusion，那Con与R的关系？R在Con中扮演的角色？

作者: jj1400 时间: 2013-7-20 23:58
这题目的联系确实弱了一些，不过仔细想想就好了。注意关键词。R说的是alarming fact. S说了好几个转折，可以看出，S是反驳R的。这是第一步。
第二步，R的为何是alarming呢？原因就是90%的人知道“SOMEONE”　是失业的。但是Ｓ说了，单纯“知道”这个信息是合理的，at any given time. 可以想一个极端。总共100个人，全都互相认识。有一个人失业了。那么100%的人都知道这个人失业了，可是失业率只有1%。这就是S反驳R的地方。懂了么

作者: MAC910808 时间: 2013-7-21 22:08
懂了，谢谢

。我主要是不清楚S列数字的用意，你举个例子就清楚了

作者: MAC910808 时间: 2013-7-21 22:11

jj1400 发表于 2013-7-20 23:58
这题目的联系确实弱了一些，不过仔细想想就好了。注意关键词。R说的是alarming fact. S说了好几个转折，可 ...

额，懂了！！！谢谢你

作者: Monstella 时间: 2013-9-15 01:11
可是R也没说unemployment rate高啊。

作者: Monstella 时间: 2013-9-15 01:17
哦哦我懂了。。。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)