求助一道曼哈顿CR

shell_liu · 发表于 2016-7-4 17:53:26

求助一道CR:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the representative's argument depends?

		The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
		Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
		For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.
		Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.
		The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

emmahiggins09 · 发表于 2016-7-5 04:27:31

这题我影响深刻，因为虽然我当时用排除法最对了，但是也是看了RON 的解释后才理解了，考试要是遇到，我估计也不会做

Conclusion: there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism
选项B取非后就是 Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, FEW were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

下面是RON 大神的原句
If we say out of the group of people who far surpass adoption criteria, our staff only knows a small % of them, then why do 80% of our kids go to the ones that our staff knows.
That would be favoritism and go against the argument.

就是B取非后是结论不成立

这里Manhattan 论坛讨论的链接
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/adoption-agency-representative-mgmat-cat-cr-question-t16033.html

RyanR · 发表于 2016-7-5 08:38:58

这题一看就是抄那个总统取消的大部分项目都是反对派的项目，但是总统那一派的人说不是因为政治因素，而是因为纯经济因素，给的理由是被取消的反对派项目都是被评定为浪费的。
那如果总统派的和反对派的项目都有很多被认定为浪费，凭啥只取消反对派的呢？所以达到某个标准不能完全说明问题，要同时看是否具有代表性。

alzn2765 · 发表于 2016-7-5 10:59:59

善用搜索啊！
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1246193-1-1.html

shell_liu · 发表于 2016-7-5 12:30:58

alzn2765 发表于 2016-7-5 10:59
善用搜索啊！
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1246193-1-1.html

嗯这个贴我有看，实在不好意思我没看懂您在那个贴里的回复，so摊手

shell_liu · 发表于 2016-7-5 12:38:49

emmahiggins09 发表于 2016-7-5 04:27
这题我影响深刻，因为虽然我当时用排除法最对了，但是也是看了RON 的解释后才理解了，考试要是遇到，我估计 ...

明白了！非常感谢！

求助一道曼哈顿CR

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()