15. In the course of her researches, a historian recently found two documents mentioning the same person, Erich Schnitzler. One, dated May 3, 1739, is a record of Schnitzler's arrest for peddling without a license. The second, undated, is a statement by Schnitzler asserting that he has been peddling off and on for 20 years.
The facts above best support which of the following conclusions? (A)Schnitzler started peddling around 1719. (B)Schnitzler was arrested repeatedly for peddling. (C)The undated document was written before 1765. (D)THe arrest record was written after the undated document. (E)The arrest record provides better evidence that Schnitzler peddled that does the undated document. 看来看去一个也不是答案.勉强觉得E还有可能.答案偏偏是C. WHY? Please help!
If you know C is the answer and do not understand, that means that you have not understood the question.
The 1739 document referred to indicates that the latest possible date Erich started peddling without a license is May 3, 1739. So if the second statement says 20 years, it should be before 1759 (1739+20), which is the latest possible year. So C is right.
A tip for this question is that for conclusion type of question, you can use "negative", the same approach for assumption question.
Use "neg" on C, "The undated document was written after 1765." Considering the "...off and on for 20 years" in the statement, the earliest possible year that Erich started peddling should be around 1745. You can see that it contradicts the first document. Then C is right.
以下是引用mindfree在2003-12-19 1:16:00的发言： If you know C is the answer and do not understand, that means that you have not understood the question.
The 1739 document referred to indicates that the latest possible date Erich started peddling without a license is May 3, 1739. So if the second statement says 20 years, it should be before 1759 (1739+20), which is the latest possible year. So C is right.
A tip for this question is that for conclusion type of question, you can use "negative", the same approach for assumption question.
Use "neg" on C, "The undated document was written after 1765." Considering the "...off and on for 20 years" in the statement, the earliest possible year that Erich started peddling should be around 1745. You can see that it contradicts the first document. Then C is right.
Hey, mindfree, thanks for the reply. But I still got stuck with it. For the first document, it's clear. The question comes from the undated document. This statement can be issued either before the arrest or after the arrest. In the statement he didn't say he did peddle with or without license. "Aha!" You are right. In this case, no matter when the document was issued, it is before 1765(before the arrest, it's 1739-20=1719, or after the arrest it's 1739+20=1759).
But using the same approach, I was confused with (A)Schnitzler started peddling around 1719. You see, use "Neg" on A, then he didn't started peddling around 1719, what he said 20-year would be the contradicted. So (A) is also right.
And why not (E). You see, the undated document uses the word of "asserting". It means he might exaggerate what he did. So "The arrest record provides better evidence that S peddled than does the undated document."
以下是引用Snazzy在2003-12-19 13:27:00的发言： hi, coach, can it be possible that guy had been arrested for a couple of times? say, first arrest was 1739, teh second was 1750, ... thanks
Hey, Snazzy, thanks for the message. But I don't think "arrested for a couple of times" can be concluded from the message. Which answer are you thinking?
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-12-18 22:43:00
楼主
