Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution into the atmosphere. In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs. Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits.
The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to
(A) allow for the possibility that Bando may not want to change its manufacturing process
(B) does not supply information about other possible ways for Bando to reduce pollution
(C) consider that the relative sales volumes of a company's products are not necessarily proportional to profits
(D) identify any alternative methods by which to convince Bando to change its manufacturing process
(E) consider that a boycott may take too long to achieve its purpose.
我的疑惑：
我选了A.我觉得argument的主要逻辑是boycott能够使公司change process。因此，就算boycott伤害了profit,如果公司依然not change process,那么 ，boycott也并不会达到goal。所以选了A.
我能够理解正确答案C的逻辑：light bulbs量大不代表对收入的贡献多。但是依然觉得argument的重点不是profit怎么样、而是boycott这个plan能不能实现change process这个goal.
很困惑、求分析。。。
以及、如何理解曼哈顿5th中说的A选项reverse logic了（下面黄底部分的文字）
答案是C
下面是曼哈顿5th中相关的解释.
Step 1: Identify the question
The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to
The word “flawed” indicates that this is either a Flaw or a Weaken question. “If true” does NOT appear, so this is a Flaw question. I'll write down “Fl” on my scrap paper
Step 2: Deconstruct the argument
Environ-ist: manuf → atmo pollutn
boyc bulbs (↑ sales) → so company ∆ manuf
Bando sells ↑ bulbs → boyc → ↑ damage to prof
Step 3: State the goal
The environmentalist doesn't like that Bando pollutes. Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, so the environmentalist wants to boycott those bulbs to do the most damage to Bando'sprofits (according to this environmentalist, anyway), and then the hope is that this will all cause the company to change its manufacturing process.
I need to find an answer that will articulate a flaw in that reasoning. I've already thought of one. The environmentalist is assuming that just because Bando sells more light bulbs than anything else, the company is also earning the most profits from those products. But there's no evidence to support that. Also, consumers might not actually agree to boycott Bando.
Step 4: Work from wrong to right
(A) If anything, it could be argued that the environmentalist is already assuming the company will not want to change—that's why the environmentalist thinks he or she has to organize a boycott to change the company's mind.
(B) In the real world, I agree that environmentalist's should explore all possible ways…but the question asks me to find a flaw in this particular plan about the boycott. This doesn't apply to that plan.
(C) CORRECT. This sounds kind of like what I said before. It's a little abstract, so I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but it does say that sales aren't necessarily proportional to profits. I'll keep this one in.
(D) This is like choice (B). It'd be good in general for the environmentalist to do this…but this doesn't help me figure out a flaw in the boycott plan specifically.
(E) I think what really matters is whether the plan is going to work at all, not how long it takes. The argument doesn't have any requirements about how long it will take to get Bando to change its process.
The most common trap on Flaw questions involves making an irrelevant distinction or comparison: - discussing alternate plans or paths when we were asked to comment on the given plan(similar to answers B and D in the above example)
- brings up a detail or distinction that does not actually affect the conclusion; similar tochoice E in the above problem
- Flaw questions may also occasionally use Reverse Logic, similar to answer choice A in the above example.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2017-12-17 10:20:20
收藏
收藏
楼主