ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2520|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

陈向东逻辑P62-Q56

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-7-10 14:29:00 | 只看该作者

陈向东逻辑P62-Q56

The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. As Bell's president is well aware, however, in order to increase the workers' wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries. So, some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold.

The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

A. Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses.
B. Bell's management will refuse to increase its workers' wages.
C. The workders ar Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.
D. Bell's president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase.
E. Bell's workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase.



答案为C,请问C为什么对,E为什么不对

沙发
发表于 2004-7-10 18:36:00 | 只看该作者

我试解一下:

本题的推理比较清晰:  not go on strike-->increase salary --> sell off subsidiary

conclusion: subsidiary be sold

所以有c

a中的suffer loss 为out of scope; b中的refuse to increase wages只能推出go on strike;d只是说了采取措施 的可能性, 但是没有说结果, 为irrelevant; e 为out of scope, 因为题目推理中没有任何条件设计accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase会有何结果;

请指教!

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-7-11 17:41:00 | 只看该作者
若C为assumption,则C否(即,will go on strike),可以使原命题(not go to strike-->salary increase-->sell off subsidiary)不成立,但是不能推翻原命题啊
地板
发表于 2004-7-12 11:25:00 | 只看该作者

NOT+WEAKEN 解法是不是只要WEAKEN就可以, 不一定要推翻原命题啊

拙见请指教

5#
发表于 2004-7-12 13:30:00 | 只看该作者

i choose (d).

6#
发表于 2004-7-12 21:01:00 | 只看该作者
Agree with hope. This question is quite different from other assumption questions. It is structured like: A-->B. So B. What is assumed is A. It is quite clear though. Just memorize this type.
7#
发表于 2004-7-13 09:57:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢Mindfree NN的指导!
8#
发表于 2004-7-14 14:19:00 | 只看该作者

A--->B,  so B and A is assumed .

The reasoning above sounds inconsistent with what ETS explains in OG.

'cause what can be assumed should be necessary to conclusion rather than sufficient.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-11-2 06:13
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部