问og-2 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

2. The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in
Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from
Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than
would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average
Louisianan’s life.
B. The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.
C. The longevity ascribed to Hawaii’s current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors.
D. Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years.
E. Most of the Hawaiian Islands have levels of air pollution well below the national average for the United
States.

D fails to weaken the conclusion because it is consistent with the information given and the conclusion about life
expectancy.这里说与文章中一致所以就没weaken,这是怎么理解的，是否是这个意思：与文章中说的大意相同就等于没有任何推导过程，所以什么也不是，所以没有weaken?

By suggesting that Hawaii’s environment is in one respect particularly healthy, E supports the conclusion.想问一下E怎么就是加强结论：在H就会活得长久？不是说有空气污染吗？还在国标以下，那不就是很严重吗，应该是削弱结论啊。

樓主MM,首先說明一下,不是問題的問題啦,是我們閃太快,沒見到,在這先跟妳道歉!!別介意唷!!

D之所以不夠成weaken的理由是,30%在L城可以活超過77歲,就此點來說還有另外的70%未知,在題目沒給任何訊息的情況下,我們不能自己用預設立場去推斷的...所以理由不夠強...

E,樓主的說法有矛盾吧,在國標之下的空氣污染,那麼污染應該不嚴重吧...,因為那而環境好,人體叫不受外在影響,活的長久..

以下是引用beautywawa在2005-2-8 8:50:00的发言：

樓主MM,首先說明一下,不是問題的問題啦,是我們閃太快,沒見到,在這先跟妳道歉!!別介意唷!!

你這題主要是數字的比較,

E,樓主的說法有矛盾吧,在國標之下的空氣污染,那麼污染應該不嚴重吧...,因為那而環境好,人體叫不受外在影響,活的長久..

E的说法我已经弄明白了，原来在国标以下是说空气质量好的意思啊。

可是D还是不明白：1。不明白你说的。不能用自己预设的立场去推断是说不能推导出70％的人没有活过77岁吗？2，不明白og的解释，D fails to
weaken the conclusion because it is consistent with the information given and the conclusion about life expectancy.——D之所以不能weaken的理由是D与文中给定信息和结论一致（be consistent with）？这个一致了，怎么就不能weaken了呢？是说应该不一致才算weaken吗？

记得另外的逻辑题目里有这样的说法，　一种农药可以杀死一种害虫当这虫处在一个幼虫阶段，问ＷＥＡＫＥＮ，有一个选项说很多害虫不经过幼虫阶段．这是无关的，无论别的虫对农药有没有反应，我要杀的只是这一种害虫而已。

这里也是一样，其他人的寿命毫无关系，哪怕他们都活到１００岁，我要关心的就是这个小孩是否能否活得长，所以Ｄ的比例再高，再低都没有关系。ＯＮ　ＴＨＥ　ＯＴＨＥ　ＨＡＮＤ，

别人活得长也不能推出我活的长，要么是ＦＡＬＳＥ　ＡＮＡＬＯＧＹ，要么是样本推一般。

谢谢楼上fiscal的回答。你是说楼主说的“用预设立场去推断”是指甭管你说你们能否活过77岁，跟我孩子能否活过77岁无关吗？

但我还是不明白og的解释，有谁能帮我证明一下og的解释是正确的？

而且我发现og的解释中经常有be consisted with这种说法作为不可选的根据。可是一直搞不懂的说

我也和搂住一样的问题啊，这题的逻辑推理没问题，只是对og的解释看不懂啊。

Og对D fails to weaken the conclusion because it is consistent with the information given and the conclusion about life expectancy.的解释怎么理解呀？为什么说D和原文结论一致而不能起到削弱的作用呀？

这是削弱题里面很常见的一种现象；即选项与原文的推理兼容（compatible或者consistent）,但是却起不到削弱的作用；在明白点，其实是说了一句无关痛痒的话。