OG16 CR 38写下自己给自己的分析（如有大牛望指教）

小仙女rachel · 发表于 2017-8-19 22:09:08

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
(A) An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
(C) Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.（那些愿意犯严重罪的人经常不愿意遵守他们看起来有较少约束的交通法）
(D) The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.

题干：
给了一个提议，说把officers重新分类：traffic enforcement---->serious crimes （counterproductive）
criminals use cars more--->拦车检查的时候可以发现crimes的证据，strengthen the counterproductive primise.（也就是不支持traffic enforcement---->serious crimes ）
我刚才看了施主的帖子，施主说strengthen题目：1.弥补gap 2.排除他因 3.直接加强 4.justify (也就是结论出现however的时候)
我觉得应该用justify。however后面是 the reason would in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes.
Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.正好支撑了原文的however后面的那个结论

我看到没有人讨论这个题，应该属于简单题。我基础太差了，所以分析一下。
大家如果看到了，觉得哪里不好，敬请指教，感激不尽！

小仙女rachel · 发表于 2017-8-19 22:10:40

自己顶，其实这题没做出来完全是因为没读懂题

RichardVeritas · 发表于 2017-8-20 09:44:07

我选答案C。
作者论点- 不应该把交警派去刑侦重罪

逻辑链
重罪犯一般开车作案
如果重罪犯违反交通（注意这个潜在的假设），交警会拦下来，可以同时发现重罪线索

C的支持是
（那些愿意犯严重罪的人经常不愿意遵守他们看起来有较少约束的交通法）
如果用白话说就是
重罪犯一般作案时，根本不屌交通规则。

这个补充很完美：
重罪犯在作案时会违反交通，这样交警就会把他们拦下来了。完美地补上了逻辑链中的一个假设。

答案C如果写这个白话“重罪犯一般作案时，根本不屌交通规则。”，题目难度就会降低一些。出题者有意把这个支持一般化（abstraction, generalization)，这样如果你没有办法看清其中的指代关系，就觉得这个没什么关系。大家应该多熟悉些这种一般化的说法。看玩笑时想想怎样把简单的事，搞得高大上。是一个道理。答案看到这种明显一般化的选项，一定要多读多想一下。

Richard 770 逻辑答题讨论
http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... amp;fromuid=1294035

tinahuimin · 发表于 2018-3-16 05:15:03

RichardVeritas 发表于 2017-8-20 09:44
我选答案C。
作者论点- 不应该把交警派去刑侦重罪

看一下！

w76o09n21e48a · 发表于 2018-3-20 09:56:00

看一下！

OG16 CR 38写下自己给自己的分析（如有大牛望指教）

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()