请教og-80 and og-81

The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

80.   The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.

(B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.

(C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.

(D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.（E）

(E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

81.   The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakened if it were true that

(A) in 1987 smugglers of illegal drugs, as a group, had significantly more funds at their disposal than did the country’s customs agents

(B) domestic production of illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987

(C) the author’s statements were made in order to embarrass the officials responsible for the drug-control program

(D) in 1987 illegal drugs entered the country by a different set of routes than they did in 1986（B）

(E) the country’s citizens spent substantially more money on illegal drugs in 1987 than they did in 1986

这两题我做题是这样理解的

我首先认为这是一个因果形

80：

the program was a failure (cause) ------> the wholesale price drop(evidence)

那么assumption可以是去除他因，答案e说a drop in demand was not the cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

81：

weaken是他因削弱那么答案b说domestic production of illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987那么就削弱了the program to control the the entry of illegal drug这个原因

可是做完题看看og解释思考了一下我发现一些问题，到底是谁在推谁？

题目中说 If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987

这是一个虚礼语气也就是说program  successful -->price would not have dropped

逆否命题price had  dropped ----> program was a failure 这才是真实的情况。

而program was a failure 也就是第一句 “The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987.“

因此我感觉最初的推导有疑问，并得到了以下结论

price had  dropped (evidence) ----> program was a failure(conclusion)

此时我感觉文中的推导是一个前提结论型。而且似乎这个解释更加科学一点，但如果这样去理解这道题的推导过程的话似乎会给解题带来极大的麻烦。比如说80题吧，“E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price”明确提到了这是一个他因，按照前提结论简直是无法解题的

我现在考虑的是这道题是不是就是所谓前提推出结论，而结论解释前提的那种类型呢？

新东方狒狒说的那个第三种类型的文章是不是就是这种类型呀？

现在搞得有点晕，还请大家帮忙指点一下！

偶不时牛牛，刚刚开始逻辑…… 偏巧这两道是对的，希望能帮助你

我觉得应该是 the price falls-->the programme is a failure

刚好反过来，80就比较好选了。

ets在这里的思路很奇怪：

先对e取非，

对毒品需求下降，也会导致价格下降（这是显而易见的！），所以，如果需求下降的情况成立的话，不能说programme有问题。所以毒品需求不能下降。

再顺着说一下，

一个有效的programme，控制的是毒品的供给！！ e说not the sole cuase，其实就是暗示两个cuase，需求和供给。

因为计划失败，所以供给上升，所以价格下降。假设前提是，需求是没有下降的。

我自己都说晕了………………

费费老嘲笑老美很笨，我看也不全是。我就是到大学才建立需求和供给决定价格这个道理的。

81其实道理是一样的。

题目考察的是entry of drug，就是毒品从国外的流入。如果毒品不是从国外走私进来的，是国内自己生产的，同样会造成供给增加，价格下降。但是不却不能说计划有问题。

最后，个人认为费费高屋建瓴灌输给我们的什么他因削弱各种类型，在刚刚开始的时候不用太在在意，因为题量没有上去。费费也是在大量练习的基础上总结出来的，我们也勤学苦练，可以对那些类型有感性认识。

最后一段仅供参考……

哈哈mm说的没错，但并没有解决我的疑惑！

我的问题是该题是不是前提推出结论，而结论解释前提的那种类型呢，

这一点我不能非常确定。

关于mm所言“ets在这里的思路很奇怪：

先对e取非“ 我认为这就是答案是去除他因来假设，而ets的解释就是取非削弱，因而是ets最喜欢的思路

哈哈

我是临近(gmat考试）无以宁静呀！

临近以致远亚 哈哈最后两句是胡扯了！

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=83910

mm过来讨论一下我的这个问题吧？

tqbiao

本题是条件型的假设