LSAT-4-2-9

snow_mountain · 发表于 2003-11-21 10:27:00

9. The journalistic practice of fabricating
remarks after an interview and printing them
within quotation marks, as if they were the
interviewee's own words, has been decried as a
form of unfair.
Misrepresentation. However, people's actual
spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as
clearly as does a distillation of those ideas
crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer.
Therefore, since this practice avoids the more
serious misrepresentation that would occur if
people's exact words were quoted but their
defensible.
Which one of the following is a questionable
technique used in the argument?
(A) answering an exaggerated charge by
undermining the personal authority of those who
made that charge .
(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession
provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms
of that profession.
(C) Offering as an adequate defense of a practice
an observation that discredits only one of
several possible alternatives to that practice.
(D) concluding that a practice is right on the
grounds that it is necessary.
(E) using the opponent's admission that a
practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive
proof that that practice is never inappropriate.

这种分析论证错误，还是论证策略的题怎么入手呀？那位给分析分析。答案是C

番茄炒蛋 · 发表于 2003-11-22 00:48:00

原文开始说fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, 这种做法是不对的
那后面就有人反对了，说是这是人们的原话rarely convey their ideas
这个反对的人以为这样就足以Offering as an adequate defense of a practice
但是还有一种可能性，就是这种概括本身也可能是错误的，根本就没有搞清楚interviewee's own words
所以他的解释是Inadequate defense
不知道解释的对不对，高人再来看看吧

冬眠猫 · 发表于 2004-2-5 12:20:00

文中if people's exact words were quoted but their defensible怎么解释呵？？

lawyer_1 · 发表于 2004-2-5 23:33:00

1.推理为:因为完全引述INTERVIEWEE的话这种做法不好,将原话处理这种做法比较好,所以用处理的方法完全合理的.错误在:只是怀疑一种做法不好,便充分的认为另一种方法完全好,而排除其它可能更好的方法.即C. 其实C 的"ADEQUATE DEFENSE"很好对应原文"ENTIRELY DEFENSIBLE"

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-2-5 23:36:31编辑过]

麻集爱 · 发表于 2004-3-31 11:00:00

c: Offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice.

正确语序为 Offering an observation ( that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice.) as an adequate defense of a practice

提出一个现象(指提纯原说话人的观点这种做法）[ 批判了practice(journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks) 的几种可能的解释(有可能是好意提纯有可能是恶意编造）］作为能为这种practice辩护的足够证据

俺就这样解释了．累啊～

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-3-31 11:17:48编辑过]

philikittist · 发表于 2004-3-31 11:47:00

以下是引用冬眠猫在2004-2-5 12:20:00的发言：
文中if people's exact words were quoted but their defensible怎么解释呵？？

不应该这样断句，

最后一句话的主体架构是：since~，it is entirely defensible.(开头的therefore是承接上句的)。since引导的从句的骨架是：practice avoids misrepretation。misrepretation有定语从句修饰，这个定语从句本身又带条件状语从句，也就是if people's exact words i~~。

搞清结构意思就好懂了。我翻译的不好，大概意思就是：因此，既然这种处理方式可以避免更严重的误解——直接使用被采访者原话却偏颇的表达了他们的意思，那么这种处理就还算是可以的。

philikittist · 发表于 2004-3-31 11:53:00

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-2-5 23:33:00的发言：
1.推理为:因为完全引述INTERVIEWEE的话这种做法不好,将原话处理这种做法比较好,所以用处理的方法完全合理的.错误在:只是怀疑一种做法不好,便充分的认为另一种方法完全好,而排除其它可能更好的方法.即C. 其实C 的"ADEQUATE DEFENSE"很好对应原文"ENTIRELY DEFENSIBLE"

nodnod

运河 · 发表于 2004-10-11 22:58:00

答案C的语序可以这样理解：

Offering an observation ( that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practiceas) as an adequate defense of a practice.

原文的意思是：直接引用原话不能达意。而经过作家提炼后的原话更能达意。

所以，还是作家提炼这种方式好。

个人理解：

引用原话不达意即people's actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas 只是一种可能one of several possible alternatives to that practiceas;

还有其他可能alternatives即引用原话也可以象经过作家提炼之后一样达意：people's actual spoken remarks actualy convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted。

原文的错误在于：否定了其他可能性。即答案C.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-24 13:31:04编辑过]

LSAT-4-2-9

LSAT-4-2-9

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块