- UID
- 779686
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-11
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
1. Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years. We
can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
(A) Sue did not train as hard as Maria trained.
The extreme situation is that Sue did not even trained, while Maria trained only a little, thus weakening the argument.
(B) If Maria trained hard, she would win the
sailboat race.
In this answer choice, training hard is a sufficient condition to the win, but the conclusion in the argument regards training hard is the necessary condition to the win. This answer choice is very misleading!
(C) Maria could beat a four-time winner only if she
trained hard.
Yes, even though answer B is very attractive, answer C is better than it. This answer choice makes it clear that training hard is the necessary condition to beat a four-time winner and win the local sailboat race. BA
(D) If Sue trained hard, she would win the sailboat
race.
It has no business of Sue’s training.
(E) Sue is usually a faster sailboat racer than Maria.
But it cannot support the argument.
37.
The use of radar detectors in commercial vehicles was banned because commercial truck and bus drivers were using these devices to drive faster than the posted speed limit without fear of arrest. Since drivers of noncommercial vehicles also use radar detectors and since speeding decreases safety for any vehicle, use of radar detectors should also be banned in noncommercial vehicles to increase safety.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?
(A) The average noncommercial-vehicle driver is involved in less long-distance driving than is the average commercial-vehicle driver.
Actually, this answer choice weakens the argument. Since less long-distance may produce fewer accidents, there is no need for noncommercial vehicles to stop using radar detectors.
(B) In many places airplanes or helicopters are used rather than radar to locate vehicles traveling faster than the posted speed limit.
The way to locate vehicles traveling faster than the posted speed limit is irrelevant.
(C) The ban on radar detectors in commercial vehicles has been effective in deterring them from speeding.
This answer choice supports the argument by showing that the success in commercial vehicles may have the same effect on the noncommercial vehicles. BA
(D) Traffic accidents involving a truck or bus generally pose a greater threat of injury or death than do other accidents.
This is outside the scope of the argument.
(E) Radar detectors are sometimes set off by devices other than the law enforcement devices that the radar detectors were built to detect.
These devices are irrelevant.
38.
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
Yes, from this answer choice, we can find that the risk of oil spill caused by tankers can be easily reduced, thus casting doubt on the argument. BA
(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
This answer choice strengthens the argument by showing that the damage caused by tankers is more serious than that caused by offshore operations.
(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.
This answer choice strengthens the argument by showing that offshore operations have an advantage over importing oil on tankers.
(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
It is a Shell Game answer. The purpose is to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing use of oil, having nothing to do with the damage in the ocean floor.
(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
The comparison with fees is outside the scope of the argument.
39.
The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big American steel mills. In fact, the quotas will help "mini-mills" flourish in the United States. Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas.
The argument reveals that the imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big American steel mills, because small domestic mills compete with them. What’s more, the last sentence points out that those small domestic mills are more competitive than foreign steel mills to take more business from the big American steel mills. Actually, three of them are competitive relationship.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claim made in the last sentence above?
(A) Quality rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of steel to be used for a particular application.
Since we know nothing about the qualities or prices of small domestic mills and foreign steel mills, this answer choice cannot cast doubt on the claim made in the last sentence.
(B) Foreign steel mills have long produced grades of steel comparable in quality to the steel produced by the big American mills.
It seems to be a contender. But we do not know how about the small domestic mills.
(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods.
Other countries that impose similar quotas on American goods are outside the scope of the argument.
Because the products are different between small domestic mills and big mills, they are no rivals.
(D) Domestic "mini-mills" consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills.
Actually, this answer choice strengthens the argument by showing that domestic “mini-mills” have an advantage.
(E) Domestic "mini-mills" produce low-volume, specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills.
Yes, in this case, it accurately points out a weakness about domestic “mini-mills”, thus weakening the argument. BA
40.
A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.
The conclusion is about who is more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than is who else. However, in the argument, no such information has been referred, so the answer should talk about this kind of comparison.
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
Who is less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than is who else. Irrelevant.
(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
Yes, it refers to the comparison, thus strengthening the argument. BA
Although it may be obvious that the more often you speed, the more likely you are to get caught, the argument doesn’t literally spell it out, and that’s the point.
(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
The comparison of numbers has no effect on the argument. Besides, the argument talks about the percentage.
(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
The ticketed times have no effect on the argument.
(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
Other state highways are out of the scope of the argument.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-12-20 16:51:45
nly 3% drivers install radar but 35% drivers ticketed for speeding have been equipped with them.
