ChaseDream

标题: lsat-3-1-22 [打印本页]

作者: icyeye 时间: 2005-2-19 17:49
标题: lsat-3-1-22
22. In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers made pie dough together using rolling pins and other utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that was distinctively different from those used by the other, "father-son pairs, and each father repeated the phrase "rolling pin" each time his son used it. But when the children were asked to identify all of the rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that included several rolling pins, each child picked only the one that he had used.

Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?

(A) the children did not grasp the function of rolling pin.

(B) No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object

(D) Each child was able to identify correctly only the utensils that he had used.

(E) The children were not able to distinguish the rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.

我选了d，答案是b(我找不到这个选项与题目的联系)

作者: dphxmg 时间: 2005-2-23 22:26

答案d 不过是对提干最后一句话的简单重复，因此不是推论。

推论是从已知得未知。generally speaking, inference is an opinion or guess you draw from what you have known.

For example, my rolling pins differ from yours in terms of their colours. But either mine or yours are rolling pins. you can't deny this only because yours are red and mine are blue. Herein colour is not conclusive. In fact, an inference is usually based on some common sense of society. For example, on Earth rolling pins are characterised by their same function. Maybe on another planet, eg. Apex, rolling pins are defined by their colours. For example, in Apex, if and only if a utensil is blue, it can be called 'rolling pin'.

另外一个例子，200多年以前，C 国的人认为，如何检验一个东西是对还是错，判断标准是哲学家K的话。80多年以前，C 国的人认为K的话不对，我们要打倒K家店。于是，有过了30多年，M家店得以确立。但是20多年以前，M家店也被打倒了。 Practice 的权威得到确立。现在不管P家店是不是omnipotent and omniscient, 但是比起K家店和M家店它是一个历史进步。至少C国的一部分人不再被一两个old men所愚弄。

第二个例子车的有点远，不平则鸣，各位看官自有公道。

作者: icyeye 时间: 2005-2-24 01:29

谢谢dphxmg，经典的

作者: mage 时间: 2005-2-24 01:30
I agree with your comments about inference. It's pinpoint and interesting, however, I don't think D is ruled out because of the repetition. Actually, D can't be infered from the stimulus. Look at the sentense, Each child was able to identify correctly only the utensils that he had used. If we replace the untensils with rolling pins, than your remark is valid. What do you think?

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