- UID
- 1390765
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2019-3-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Most strongly supported by the question means that the answer must not bring in any new ideas nor be could be true. For sure, it asks you to look for somehow must be true answer.
Conclusion: Decision makers tend to have distinctive styles.
p1: Style of the decision maker to seek the widest possible input from advisers and to explore alternatives while making up the mind.
P2. Decision makers like this will often argue for a particular idea by emphasizing strong points and downplaying the weak ones.
P3. Not because they believe the idea, but because they want to know if their reservation about the idea are idiosyncratic or are held independently by their advisers.
Inferences : People who are decision maker argue an idea by bring out the strong points and avoid the weak ones must be people, decision maker, who want to know if their reservation about the idea are idiosyncratic or are held independently by their advisers. They could either believe the idea or not. It does not really matter.
Inferences 2: Meanwhile, if Inference 1 is true, they also must seek the widest possible input from advisers and to explore alternatives while making up the minds.
Inferences 3: If Inferences 2 is correct, then they tend to have distinctive style.
lets looking into the options
A. Regardless of the fact that whether their statement are accurately and at length and the contents of the statement are greatly at variance with the decision eventually make, it does not really impact the argument.
we know that it might be possible that the final decision might be greatly differ compared to original quotes, however, we do not know if its the necessary condition of the sufficient assumption it stated.
B. " Certain decision makers do not know which ideas they do not believe in until they have presented a variety of their advisers. - Imho, this is the correct answer
They might not believe in the idea but still argue for both the strong and weak points. However, " Not because they actually believe in " could also mean - even they believe in, they still want to argue vigorously. So, could be true, but not necessary to be true. However, here is the key point, if there are certain decision makers does not know which ideas to believe, there must be certain decision makers truly believe in the ideas. In that sense, Just because of the original premise " not because they believe in ", if we negate the inference of B ( there must be certain decision makers truly believe in the ideas ), and it will become " there are no certain decision makers must do believe the ideas ", and vice versa on the original B, we can have 2 scenarios
1. All of the decision makers believe in the idea
2. All of the decision makers do not believe in the idea.
If all of the decision makers do not believe in the idea, that might be the core reason why they argue vigorously, and not because they want to exam their own idea
* This is Necessary assumption question ! Utilizing the must be true inference from the answer choice, then then treat it as the necessary assumption by seeing wether negate the logical standpoint of it could refute the original argument
C. If it can't downplay the weak and emphasize the strong ones, it might not argue vigorously that often, but that does not mean it would dismiss an idea out of hand
D. Its not about whether they will decide in favor of the idea they believe or not, its about whether how they present the idea and gather the view points to exam those of their owns.
E. If adviser knows what are the actual beliefs they advice, they will give better advices than they would if they did not know those beliefs.
Which is, you will be giving out a better idea if you know what are the actual beliefs, and you won't if you do not know. ( Irrelevant )
|
|