ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 13087|回复: 29
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]gwd-3-32

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-1-30 14:46:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]gwd-3-32

Q32:


Newspaper editorial:



In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.



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



A.     Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.


B.     Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.


C.     The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.


D.     Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.


E.      The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.


答案是c,但是我觉得c取非后加强原文。


请大侠解释解释

沙发
发表于 2005-1-31 11:23:00 | 只看该作者
置顶帖里有讨论
板凳
发表于 2005-1-31 16:50:00 | 只看该作者

原文说现在不准监狱里关的家伙去进修大学课程了,作者反对,说


EVIDENCE:since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.


推出结论,大学课程是有帮助的。


要ASSUME,


C说      The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. 就是说这帮修大学课程的家伙进来的时候和那帮不要修大学课程的人一样危险,一样的犯罪可能性和倾向, 这样的话,原文的结论修大学课程有用就成立了,因为这帮原来都一样混的家伙修了大学课程后,斯文了很多,比没修课程的人文明了不少。


C把NOT按掉,The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were (not) already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.


这帮修课的人进监狱的时候就已经很斯文了,那不就是说修课没有用么,削弱了原文.

地板
 楼主| 发表于 2005-2-1 12:55:00 | 只看该作者

3x

解释得很清楚,我懂啦

5#
发表于 2005-11-7 23:57:00 | 只看该作者


应该选A


本文前提:参加课程整体犯罪率比不参加的罪犯要少得多。


结论:政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。


取非后使原推理过程必不成立者是假设(支持)。


A取非:不参加课程能够阻止任何人犯罪。(那么政府不让罪犯参加课程必然可以减少犯罪率)取非后,使原推理过程绝对不成立。所以A是假设。支持结论。


C、参加课程的人并不比不参加的人犯罪率低。(注意:not less两个否定。)违反前提(而非削弱前提),怎么可能是支持的假设选项呢?


且C取非后:参加课程的人比不参加课程的人犯罪率低。(那么政府不让罪犯参加课程不能减少犯罪率。)取非后,使原推理过程绝对成立,必不为支持(假设)选项。



以下是引用fiscal在2005-1-31 16:50:00的发言:

原文说现在不准监狱里关的家伙去进修大学课程了,作者反对,说


EVIDENCE:since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.


推出结论,大学课程是有帮助的。


要ASSUME,


C说      The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. 就是说这帮修大学课程的家伙进来的时候和那帮不要修大学课程的人一样危险,一样的犯罪可能性和倾向, 这样的话,原文的结论修大学课程有用就成立了,因为这帮原来都一样混的家伙修了大学课程后,斯文了很多,比没修课程的人文明了不少。


C把NOT按掉,The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were (not) already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.


这帮修课的人进监狱的时候就已经很斯文了,那不就是说修课没有用么,削弱了原文.


请注意C、The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.


并非说“这帮修课的人进监狱的时候就已经很斯文了”,而是说“这帮修课的人并不比不修课的人在释放后更少犯罪”。






[此贴子已经被作者于2005-11-8 0:00:24编辑过]
6#
发表于 2005-12-19 21:51:00 | 只看该作者
答案是a 讨论过了
7#
发表于 2006-1-17 00:50:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用fiscal在2005-1-31 16:50:00的发言:

原文说现在不准监狱里关的家伙去进修大学课程了,作者反对,说


EVIDENCE:since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.


推出结论,大学课程是有帮助的。


要ASSUME,


C说      The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. 就是说这帮修大学课程的家伙进来的时候和那帮不要修大学课程的人一样危险,一样的犯罪可能性和倾向, 这样的话,原文的结论修大学课程有用就成立了,因为这帮原来都一样混的家伙修了大学课程后,斯文了很多,比没修课程的人文明了不少。


C把NOT按掉,The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were (not) already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.


这帮修课的人进监狱的时候就已经很斯文了,那不就是说修课没有用么,削弱了原文.



同意,不过橙色部分有点修正:


结论:However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal,


原因:since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

8#
发表于 2006-1-17 10:24:00 | 只看该作者



Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.



请问highlight的部分如何理解?就这最糊涂了,结合下文觉得读着很别扭,好像和后面讨论的问题关系不大阿。


多谢NN们帮忙翻译一下吧,



[此贴子已经被作者于2006-1-17 10:26:29编辑过]
9#
发表于 2006-1-17 17:12:00 | 只看该作者
同意A.重要的是分析结论是什么,这个argument的结论是:不让进修课程不能降低犯罪率.并不是"大学课程是有帮助的".所以A是选项.请讨论.
10#
发表于 2006-2-14 22:42:00 | 只看该作者

同意A。A取非,不读书也有可能阻止人犯罪,结论不成立。


C取非,读书的人已经比不读书得人少犯罪,正好证明读书有用。结论-读书有助于减少犯罪-同样成立。

123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: GMAT考试

IESE MBA

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-20 14:59
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部