大全-A-6 请robertchu和wonderland再看看

我笨，我努力 · 发表于 2004-7-8 07:23:00

M-A-6.A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses. Companies must be free to set their own employment policies without mandated parental-leave regulations.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

(A) A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country.

(B) Many businesses in this country already offer employees some form of parental leave.

(C) Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations.

(D) Only companies with one hundred or more employees would be subject to the proposed parental-leave law.（C）

(E) In most polls, a majority of citizens say they favor passage of a parental-leave law.

我认为A对,是他因削弱.

C的答案不对:

1.表述是个别例子,不足说明问题.特别是some的加入.

2.如果他没有parental leave law 也许这些公司的竞争力更强.

请指点我的思路.顺便请教:我的提问的题号对了吗?因为我没有查到我想问的题,而且是第一次问大全gmat的题,如果错了,请包涵!请指正!

WONDERLAND2004 · 发表于 2004-7-8 11:41:00

A选项有一定的迷惑性，但不足以waken the conclusion of the argument.

A) A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country.

strengthen the family as a social institution 并不意味着economic competitiveness必然会提高。因为the family as a social institution 和economic competitiveness之间的联系在题目中没有给出；

C) Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations。
c是直接攻击结论，既然Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations那么自然A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses是站不住脚的。

仅供参考

robertchu · 发表于 2004-7-8 14:46:00

Agree with WONDERLAND2004.
A is outside the scope of the argument.

我笨，我努力 · 发表于 2004-7-9 04:03:00

wonderland2004,gg你好谦虚.我还是有疑问,请进一步探讨呀:

文章的前提:parental-leave law will harm business,结论是:公司不该制定

A,他因削弱,不是因为parental-leave law 和business的关系,而是因为A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country,所以公司应该制定.削弱结论.

C.选项说,有竞争力的公司也制定了parental-leave law,我觉得不是对原文的削弱.因为没有体现到底是harm还是不harm,也就是说,如果这些有竞争力的公司要是没有这个law的话,没准竞争力更强.

还晕ing

WONDERLAND2004 · 发表于 2004-7-9 08:40:00

在分析A)时你加了自己的主观判断，A)选项说A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country，但题干说的是A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses.你怎么知道to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country等于will NOT harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses.?
题目没有给出的，我们不可以随意take it for granted.请再体会。

叮当 · 发表于 2004-7-9 11:35:00

以下是引用我笨，我努力在2004-7-9 4:03:00的发言：

wonderland2004,gg你好谦虚.我还是有疑问,请进一步探讨呀:

文章的前提:parental-leave law will harm business,结论是:公司不该制定

A,他因削弱,不是因为parental-leave law 和business的关系,而是因为A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country,所以公司应该制定.削弱结论.

C.选项说,有竞争力的公司也制定了parental-leave law,我觉得不是对原文的削弱.因为没有体现到底是harm还是不harm,也就是说,如果这些有竞争力的公司要是没有这个law的话,没准竞争力更强.

还晕ing

原题说的是 "A law requiring companies to ．．.＂ "will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses" ---> "Companies must be free to set..."

A 讲次LAW的一个优点："A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country", 但并未WEAKEN原题结论:　"Companies must be free to set...".

而C讲了一些反例, 虽然不是全部, 但是反对了原题的论点:　"will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses". C就是一个没有HARM的证明, 不是WEAKEN得很好吗?

springappleleaf · 发表于 2004-7-10 12:27:00

Maybe it is getting too late. My brain does not think right now. May I know the source of this M-A-6? What is M-A?

I just found out the answer myself. M xx refers to Da Quan.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-11 21:11:15编辑过]

我笨，我努力 · 发表于 2004-7-13 10:33:00

以下是引用WONDERLAND2004在2004-7-9 8:40:00的发言：
在分析A)时你加了自己的主观判断，A)选项说A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country，但题干说的是A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses.你怎么知道to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country等于will NOT harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses.?
题目没有给出的，我们不可以随意take it for granted.请再体会。

我想问一下它因削弱：

我觉得A选项是它因削弱，它不是去削弱原因的，是找了一个其他的原因来削弱，理由如下：

自己找的跟原文贴近的例子，请wonderland指点：

给员工交三金给企业带来过多的成本，损害企业的竞争力，所以企业可以自主决定是否给员工交三金。

A）给员工交三金是国家制度，所以企业必须交

C）很多有竞争力的公司都交三金

我笨，我努力 · 发表于 2004-7-15 00:15:00

rt316 · 发表于 2004-7-15 02:30:00

以下是引用我笨，我努力在2004-7-9 4:03:00的发言：

wonderland2004,gg你好谦虚.我还是有疑问,请进一步探讨呀:

文章的前提:parental-leave law will harm business,结论是:公司不该制定

A,他因削弱,不是因为parental-leave law 和business的关系,而是因为A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country,所以公司应该制定.削弱结论.

C.选项说,有竞争力的公司也制定了parental-leave law,我觉得不是对原文的削弱.因为没有体现到底是harm还是不harm,也就是说,如果这些有竞争力的公司要是没有这个law的话,没准竞争力更强.

还晕ing

我觉得，你首先在结论和前提将犯了错误，前提应该是第二句话，而结论才是第一句话。你的想法其实属于过度思维，无论削弱还是支持都非一定是必要或充分条件，只要从某种意义上能够起到弱化结论的作用，这个选项就是削弱。结论是baby-care会harm，那么找个选项可以说明baby-care不一定会或根本不会harm就行了。A选项仅仅说明了family，而没有对businesses作任何提及，显然是无关选项，C认为有baby-care的一些公司极具竞争力，说明baby-care没有harm公司的competitiveness，从而weaken了结论。当然，你认为还有可能有另一些公司得到恰恰相反的结果，不错，这种可能性的确有，但是问中没有任何暗示，没有暗示的东西就不要去考虑，这就是所谓的收敛性思维。持有C这个观点是否可以削弱结论呢？当然可以，所以C就是正确选项。

大全-A-6 请robertchu和wonderland再看看

大全-A-6 请robertchu和wonderland再看看

wonderland2004,请问

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()