FEIFEI-74（lawyer拆小I爱漂漂的贴）

lawyer_1 · 发表于 2004-12-18 09:42:00

77. How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airline have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots’ lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.

(B) Commercial pilot routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.

(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.

答案选D,但是我觉得C和D表达的意思是一样的,为什么要选D呢? 解释中说D是取非判断,那是不是说这种ASSUMPTION的都是用取非来判断呢,因为我发现TEST 5里面的ASSUMPTION的题都是用取非来做的?? 还是只是有时候用这种方法呢??

lawyer_1 · 发表于 2004-12-18 09:59:00

原文否定培训项目的原因是它不能解决pilot error造成的事故，而pilot error造成的事故只是飞机事故的一部分。C针对的是整个飞机事故。将C取非，即该项目没有降低飞机事故，但有可能Pilot error造成的事故实际减少了。也即结论仍成立。取非否定不了结论，故不是假设

hanqingcool · 发表于 2013-9-18 06:25:01

lawyer_1 发表于 2004-12-18 09:59
原文否定培训项目的原因是它不能解决pilot error造成的事故，而pilot error造成的事故只是飞机事故的一部分 ...

学习了。

同时，我认为还可以有另一种角度理解为何将C取非后不能否定原argument，即：
增加Classroom instruction和actual flying time对减少pilot error造成的crash均有帮助，二者缺一不可。将C取非后，培训项目仅注重actual flying time无法减少pilot error caused crash，否定不了结论（与原argument不矛盾），故不是假设。

如有不对的地方，请牛人指正。

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-7-23 19:20:35

hanqingcool 发表于 2013-9-18 06:25
学习了。

同时，我认为还可以有另一种角度理解为何将C取非后不能否定原argument，即：

原文的辯證為

If training program can't make up the actual flying time, the Pilot errors which contribute to 2/3 of the crash would be no less.

which is what we are actually discussing here is whether training program which does not make up of the actually flying time could have the 2/3 of the crash caused by pilot errors less.

Let's negate C, the number of the airline crashes would not decrease, if focusing on actual flying time.

This could only prove the other point that the increasing actual flying time does not indeed as the necessary condition of the number of the airline crashes.

However, the fact that mentioned above does not weaken nor refute the original argument that " original training program fails to lower the percentages of pilot errors contributing to the crashes. "

D. Negate it, lack of actual flying time is " not " an important contributor to pilot error.

If it is not an important contributor, then are there any possibility that the original training program could work to lower the figure of 2/3 ? We don't know for sure, but we can definitely sure the other factor that if it might lower, then the original argument is not as solid as we expected, which is, its not air tight !

FEIFEI-74（lawyer拆小I爱漂漂的贴）

FEIFEI-74（lawyer拆小I爱漂漂的贴）

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()