求教lsat-7-1-8, lsat-7-1-15

ygjm · 发表于 2003-12-15 23:21:00

Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs. The reason is that this system gives health-care providers and insurers every incentive to shift, wherever possible, the costs of treating illness onto each other or any other party, including the patient. That clearly is the lesson of the various reforms of the 1980s; push in on one part of this pliable spending balloon and an equally expensive bulge pops up elsewhere. For example, when the government health-care insurance program for the poor cut costs by disallowing payments for some visits to physicians, patients with advanced illness later presented themselves at hospital emergency rooms in increased numbers.
8. The argument provides the most support for which one of the following?

(A) Under the conditions in which the current system operates, the overall volume of health-care costs could be shrunk, if at all, only by a comprehensive approach

(B) Relative to the resources available for health-care funding, the income of the higher-paid health-care professionals is too high.

(C) Health-care costs are expanding to meet additional funds that have been made available for them.

(D) Advances in medical technology have raised the expected standards of medical care but have proved expensive.

(E) Since unfilled hospital beds contribute to overhead charges on each patient’s bill, it would be unwise to hold unused hospital capacity in reserve for large-scale emergencies.

答案是A，但题干第一句“Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs.”不是正说明，在目前体系中，coherent的solution根本没办法吗？而A中说的确还是有办法啊。

15. Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety. Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential areas. Damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since there were never any hunting=related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?

(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years.

(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.

(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds.

(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.

(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

答案是A，不过怎么也没看出A能surport什么来？题干中只说了没有打猎伤人的事件发生（其实是废话，不许打猎，那来打猎伤人？），但并没说临县允许打猎也没有伤人事件发生啊？这并没推翻题干一开始提出禁令，即禁令是为保护大众安全。

那位大大给各解释吧，谢了先！

深海的小美人鱼 · 发表于 2003-12-16 00:28:00

第一句话怎不看完全呢？现有的系统是没有办法的，所以要有更综合的系统才能找到解决的办法。Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found （within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs.〔

第二题你没看懂.这里是说的禁止打猎之后造成鹿群大量繁殖，由此带来的危害。A说明了鹿群大量繁殖是因为禁止打猎造成的。形成一个桥梁。这样就无法用它因法削弱结论，即鹿群繁殖大量可能是因为别的原因造成的。

qww · 发表于 2003-12-16 08:23:00

第二题同意深海的小美人鱼的分析，分析透彻。
第一题题意我感觉挺难，看了几分钟都每完全理解。水平这样，焦虑。

ygjm · 发表于 2003-12-16 16:58:00

回小美人鱼:
A) Under the conditions in which the current system operates, the overall volume of health-care costs could be shrunk, if at all, only by a comprehensive approach
"only by a comprehensive approach" 是指一个更综合的系统? 还是仅仅一个solution? 如果是后者, 则还是在原系统中打转, 不可能有有效解决的办法; 而如果是指前者, 1. approach意为方法, 手段, 可以指系统吗? 2, A中也没有和原系统的比较, 更综合从何而说?

关于第二题, 我的理解是, 禁猎的原因是会造成人的安全伤害,而不是鹿的数量的多少."hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety", 即使是现在要求解禁, 也是因为鹿多了而造成人的安全受到威胁,"that result in serious injury to motorists"; 对于A而言, 虽然说明打猎和鹿的多少相关, 但仍然不能解决打猎会不会也给人的安全有威胁的问题. 比如, 如果打猎的威胁比鹿群的威胁还要大, 禁猎还是会保持下去.而这点, 文中只是提到Since there were never any hunting related injuries in the county,这我觉得就是废话, 此县禁猎了当然没有打猎造成的问题, 问题是又开了候会不会有呐? 题干加上A都不能给予说明.

其实这两题也可以通过排除发去做, 的确, 其他选项还不如这两个. 但想和大家讨论一下, 感觉这两个真确答案不怎么严密.

深海的小美人鱼 · 发表于 2003-12-17 02:11:00

对于题目，我认为还是理解的问题。public safty未必仅仅指对人身的伤害。而且这个题的侧重点你们没把握好。话是有人说的，每个人都可以说出自己的理由来。但是要知道，你现在看的是考题，考点在哪里就答什么。做逻辑的时候我认为要摆脱自己的个性思维。比如第二题说，禁止打猎是为了保证公共安全。但是因为不能打猎之后，鹿群大量繁殖，造成鹿群毁坏公共财产，也造成交通事故、这里已经是对前提削弱了。Deer are invading residential areas. Damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists。然后他又说因为并没有因为打猎造成人员伤害的先例，所以打猎应该是比禁止打猎更安全的。下面问的是，哪个是additional支持上述禁止打猎的，所以，题目的关键不是讨论打猎的危害。而是禁止打猎造成的鹿群繁殖给人造成的危害比比禁止打猎的危害要大。

深海的小美人鱼 · 发表于 2003-12-17 02:19:00

至于第一题，说的是因为没有办法在现行的系统下解决费用的问题，然后给出了为什么不能的原因，然后wherever possible, the costs of treating illness onto each other or any other party, including the patient就是说大家都互相推。如果是用比较综合的办法，比如每个party都负责一些，就应该解决这个问题了。这个是我延伸出来。为的是让你们更明白。
逻辑题和阅读不同。不需要给你解释的头头是道，因为不是现象解释，而是逻辑。所以，就是里面有你没说清楚的漏洞，对于题目无损也无妨。

着两道题我都是看了个大概，直接找出选项，并没有细抠。如果有没说明白或者不对的地方，大家指正。

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-8-1 15:57:56

ygjm 发表于 2003-12-15 23:21
Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found within the current ...

7-1-8

The core argument here :

The cost of health care could not be reduced by the current " piecemeal " system for everyone within the system would try to transfer the cost to the others, resulting in the overall cost could not be reduced efficiently.

* Piecemeal system
* Disallowing payments for some visit to physicians for the poor.

Apparently, what happened here is that argument implies the fact that " some " of the strategies can't work.

So, we can predict that either the answer we are looking for is the paraphrase of " Macro-scope of the strategies must be taken into considerations "

A. Perfect answer.

B. Its totally non relevant to the argument, since we are not talking about the amount of the high-paid professionals.

C. It does not mean that we can not reduce the cost.

D. The same as C

E. Totally non relevant to the argument.

7-1-15

Apparently

This is a extremely 套路題, but definitely easy to crack if we can understand where are the 套路。

Argument:

Because A, so B happened. After B happened, C is 6 times more versus C before B. C after B also causes A. Since C before B never Cause A, So B itself is not necessary, and it definitely cause A.

Let's break down the argument step by step

1. A ---> B

2. B----> 6C

3. 6C ---> A

4. C before B ---. No A

5. B ---> A

Apparently, the core point here is argument attempts to prove the causation by the correlation. Because B cause 6C, and 6C cause A, so B cause A.

So, what we really need to do is to look for 3 kinds of the different answer if we want to strengthen the argument.

1. B happens, the C remains the same because of D happen, and C remains the same, so no A happens.

( 因發生, 可當下個因的果沒發生因爲Ｄ的發生, 所以下個果沒發生）

2. B happens, 6C happens, and no other reason beside 6c could lead to A happen.

( 因發生, 可當下個因的果發生, 所以下個果發生）

3. No B, No 6C, so No A.

(因沒發生, 可當下個因的果沒發生, 所以下個果沒發生）

let us dive into the answers.

A. No B, so No C, ( No C, so No A ) Inference perfectly matches our prediction number 3.

B. It can't not prove that those deers are the deers from the group of after the ban.

C. Weaken !

D. Also weaken, Alternative cause for 6C

E. It does not really relevant to the argument

求教lsat-7-1-8, lsat-7-1-15

求教lsat-7-1-8, lsat-7-1-15

求教lsat-7-1-8, lsat-7-1-15

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()