OG-108 查过，以前没有人问

108.When three Everett-owned Lightning-built airplanes crashes in the same month, the Everett company ordered three new Lightning-built airplanes as replacements. This decision surprised many in the airline industry because, ordinarily when a product is involved in accidents, users become reluctant to buy that product.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the Everett company’s decision was logically well supported?

(A) Although during the previous year only one Lightning-built airplane crashed, competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record.

(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors.

(C) The Federal Aviation Association issued new guidelines for airlines in order to standardize safety requirements governing preflight inspections.

(D) Consumer advocates pressured two major airlines into purchasing safer airplanes so that the public would be safer while flying.

(E) Many Lightning Airplane Company employees had to be replaced because they found jobs with the competition.

108

Everett’s decision is most logically well supported if the crashes were not due to deficiencies in the planes, particularly if there is evidence that the airplanes provide significant protection to occupants in the event of a crash. Thus choice B is the best answer

Choices A and E are incorrect because each suggests that the decision might be ill founded. Competing manufacturers’ models might actually be safer (choice A), and Lightning might have lost its most able employees-those able to get new jobs (choice E). Choice C is incorrect because it provides no reason for preferring Lightning-built airplanes to other makes of airplane. Choice D is incorrect because, though it underscores the advisability of buying safe airplanes, it offers no evidence that the airplanes that Everett bought were safe.

我对og的解释不是很明白，为什么说E是反对措施的呢？我第一反映E就是无关选项，请大家多多指导

我的感觉是：

E公司都没有合格的员工去运转新买来的飞机，飞机买回来又有何用？

请讨论。

OG的解释是说：Choice A and Eare incorrect because each suggests that the decision might be ill founded.

ill founded好像是削弱吧。

而且，如果我们承认A是削弱的话，同理E也应该是削弱的。

再讨论。

我后来想了一下，这个题其实很难讲是削弱还是加强，因为原文中根本没有推理过程。所以很难讲AE是削弱，而ill founded是一个很大的概念。比如说，如果原文结论是“为了安全因素，公司决定继续买" 那A就是削弱结论的，而E就不是削弱结论的。因为E是说买了以后的问题，并没有怀疑继续买不利于安全。

我觉得这题虽然问题有support关键词，但实际是解释题，因为文中明显有discrepancy，而答案其实是应该给出这个discrepancy为什么回发生的原因，也就是对这个discrepancy进行解释。

继续讨论

有道理！因为原文并没有明确指出E公司的反常行为的目的何在，因此有关此计划的任一不利因素都可以使得这个计划ill-founded。如果削弱的问法是which of the following indicate that the measure is ill founded for safety purposes,则A正确，如果仅仅是问ill-founded则答案范围更广。

同意welkin同学的意见。其实不光是这道题，我在总结OG的时候发现很多题都是在要求解释 -- why加强,why削弱都必须解释加强或削弱的理由。

呵呵，同意同意。不过怎么感觉逻辑区就我们两个人呢？削弱：很多看贴的XDJM都没有回帖

今天中午吃饭的时候看了下新闻，说的是美国就伊拉克战争问题的听证会（中文的新闻），一个是拉姆斯菲尔德，一个是国防部的将军，分别就伊拉克问题提出自己的观点。我竟然边听边不自觉的分析他的前提的结论，晕倒，看来是学逻辑学傻了。

同感噢！偶现在一看广告就想削！削！削！

呃，两位最后讨论出来的结果是什么？

我还是觉得E是无关选项啊，但是为什么OG解释要说“ Lightning might have lost its most able employees-those able to get new jobs (choice E). ”这么一句？要是无关选项好像应该直接说irrelevant之类的，而不是在这边解释哪。