linlin的lsat（4）谢谢！

以下是引用linlin315在2003-4-27 11:13:00的发言：
第一套I
2. Handwriting analysis—also known as graphology—is a poor way to predict personality types, even though it is used by 3,000 United States firms and by a majority of European companies. In a recent study, five graphologists scored no better than chance in predicting the occupations of forty professionals.
Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument?
(A) People in the same occupation usually do not have the same personality type.
(B) Graphology is an effective means of predicting personality types in non-business contexts.
(C) There are more United States firms that do not use graphology than all the United States and European firms that do use it.
(D) There are several other techniques for predicting personality types that are more accurate than graphology.
(E) There is a correspondence between type of personality and choice of occupation.
我的问题：（1）In a recent study, five graphologists scored no better than chance in predicting the occupations of forty professionals.什么意思啊！！
（2）看到假设的题该如何想呢？？假设到底和前提与结论是个什么关系呢？

4、The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by grizzly bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses. And the number of people killed by lightning on golf course each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore, a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.
Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author’s argument?

(A) Although the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is very small, the total number of lightning fatalities is many times greater.
(B) Electric blenders are among the safest household appliances; were the author to compare fatalities from electrical appliances in general, she would get a much higher figure.
(C) Most people would rather take their chances with blenders and golf games than with grizzly bears.
(D) Bears in general—including black, brown, and cinnamon bears, as well as grizzly bears—kill many more people than do electric blenders.
(E) Statistics show that the number of times people use electric blenders each year exceeds the number of times people play golf each year, which in turn far exceeds the number of contacts people have with grizzly bears each year.
我的问题：D为什么不对啊？？

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-27 12:21:00的发言：
1. 假设题的类型不同, 但相同的是line of reasining有gap. 在读CR原文时,要做的一件事是找出文中所设计的事物, 包括名词, 概念, 数字(或比较), 时间等. 这些事物对排除答案也有很大帮助(我在我CR的总结中会提到).

你还要把握原文的推理过程(或叫逻辑关系). 第一句话:结论, 涉及概念: G, personality, companies. 第二句话:依据, 涉及概念: recent study, occupation. 你应该看到原文的逻辑关系: handwriting did poorly on predicting occupation-->handwriting is a poor way to predict personality. 两个概念不同, 中间有个gap, 既occupation<==>personality.

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-27 12:21:00的发言：
2. 典型的比较题. 同类题目出现多次. 100年里吃饭被噎死的人数和SARS两个月杀死的人数相同推出吃饭和SARS同样危险, 你说对吗?

以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-27 12:21:00的发言：

3. 还是充分必要条件.
If A, then B, 则A(充分)-->B(必要)
A only if B, 则A(充分)-->B(必要)
not A unless B, 则A(充分)-->B(必要)

原文的逻辑关系为Senator spoke --> democrat; democrat-->not spoke at the convention and a senator at the same time
命题的逆否命题相同: not democrat-->not speak as a senator; both spoke and a senator-->not a democrat.

两个结合起来, 就是:不是民主党的参议员不在convention发言, 民主党不会又发言又是参议员. 则答案为D

我可能解释地不是很清楚. 希望其他人补充!

以下是引用tony9721在2003-4-28 8:59:00的发言：
senator的这道题我当初做了半个小时都不理解，后来求教一个同事，
解释非常明了，我看你也是同路人，所以贴了出来！

No senator spoke at the convention unless he or she was a democrat
结论，属于民主党人士（包括民主党兼议员和民主党）可以在会上发言。仅仅是议员不能发言。
民主党人士（包括民主党兼议员和民主党），所以不仅是民主党兼议员，也有可能只是民主党人士。只要属于民主党 都可以发言）
No democrat both spoke at the convention and be was a senator
结论，民主党中的议员不能发言，仅仅是民主党人士可以发言。因为答案3有歧义，忽略了民主党人士兼议员人士。

根据1-2结论推出， 议员不能发言。
这是我一个同事给我的解释，英语专业，非常明了，