OG 第89题

virgmat

哪位大侠能帮忙解释下OG第89题？

89.Since it has become known that several of a bank’s top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank’s depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved.
They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank’s financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false.
They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the followng roles?

A. The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
B. The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
D. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
E. The first describes the circumstance that the arument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
怎么理解都觉得D是对的，但答案是A.

virgmat

自己顶顶，期待大侠出现〜

virgmat

再顶顶

virgmat

chitowngudrifle 发表于 2013-9-1 10:38
第二段不是在给之前的conclusion提供explanation.它在挑战之前的explanation.
从逻辑学的角度,第二段粗体字 ...

如果结论是those worrisome rumors must be false,那我就认同答案A。
可是为什么不能认为结论是such reasoning might well be over optimistic?
我的思路是这样的。。。。

Background:
Since it has become known that several of a bank’s top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank’s depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved.

opposing opinion:
They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank’s financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false.

Conclusion:
They might well be overoptimistic.

Premise:
however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.

如果按照这样的思路，那D就对了， 不知道这样的思路是否有问题？

virgmat

chitowngudrifle 发表于 2013-9-1 11:49
conclusion不是They are overoptimistic. Rumors are false是conclusion.

好吧，我只是觉得我的思路也貌似很合理。。。。。

virgmat

franciszfy 发表于 2013-9-2 03:59
呵呵，我的思路跟你是一摸一样，我也在选项中找XP这种类型的，也是选了D，现在还是不明白为什么错了，你 ...

看了上面的解释，还是不懂
还有没有其他高手发表下观点？

virgmat

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-3 10:49
BF有问题的同学都是对句子结构的认识不够完善，推荐你看一看逻辑小分队里的SDCAR2010写的《逻辑入门》的 ...

SDCAR2010的帖子研究过，我的思路就是根据他的方法来的

virgmat

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-3 13:47
那这道题你不该有问题的since开始到他们的担心relieve了都是back ground information。
they reason that ...

请看我***后的回复.

那这道题你不该有问题的since开始到他们的担心relieve了都是back ground information。
they reason that。。。是premis来推出opposite 观点：rumors are false
文章的主观点是（main conclusion）：rumors没错***你是指main conclusion是"Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic"吗?如果是的,那我同意.
最后一句话since。。。是证明文章主观点的P
这样分析下来，第一个黑体在背景知识里，第二个黑体在文章主观点的premis里，有什么难的呢？
所以第一个是一个evidence，是depositor用来证明他们观点的。第二个是P，来解释文章的主观点，而主观点和depositor的观点相左，所以证明主观点就是question前面的opposite观点。所以选A***我highlight出红色的部分不是正好是选项D中的"the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish."吗? the argument seeks to establish的就是main conclusion啊? 我不否认选项A, 只是对于选项D,不明白为什么第二段BF不能作为explanation.
你还是要好好研究一下SDCAR大神的东西，弄懂了真心不会有问题

virgmat

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-3 13:58
D看起来很像对的，但是文章理解一下就明白为什么错了。 第一个黑体：“因为好多银行高管买自己的股票”， ...

明白,现在理解为什么D中关于第一个BF是错的,谢谢

virgmat

云游 发表于 2013-9-3 14:12
Personal POV:

Pay close attention to the diction adopted before and in the B.F. portion--it says t ...

  Thanks for you detailed reply, actually,  I never think that the second BF has explained " why those bank top executives' buying of their own banks' share", however it is just a PREMISE of main conclusion" Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic", so it should be an explanation for main conclusion.
  You mentioned that the explanation should be 100% to prove the accuracy of something, I'm afraid I can't fully agree, as "explanation" is not "evidence", it can be stated subjectively. Although there is a MIGHT, but author's opnion is clearly confirmed.
  Look forward to your further advise if it is not too dizzy for you