GMAT 逻辑分析题 (25)

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2010-12-10 05:06:36

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.

cc621josh · 发表于 2010-12-10 14:41:59

E is the answer, right?

E is more strictly parallel if saying like this :"The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No husband who has an extramarital affair is not divorced from his wife," while "every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced" has the same meaning.

A, C, D make mistakes in the same way actually.

melvinperson · 发表于 2010-12-10 14:57:56

either B or E. if i have to choose one, i will choose B.

tianhui0922 · 发表于 2010-12-10 20:36:15

B吧。。。。

eliasfan · 发表于 2010-12-10 23:22:05

我选E
大侠
我思路告诉大家啊

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2010-12-10 23:48:58

E is the answer and cc621josh's analysis is right on.

holyxie · 发表于 2011-7-5 23:30:41

能不能解说下A,C,D为什么与原文逻辑不相合？

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2011-7-6 01:06:13

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Conclusion: The following claim is wrong: If a democratic activity has no government support, then the government does not allow that activity.

Premise: The following claim is wrong: If a democracy is allowed to be pursued, then that democracy must have government support.

Basically using a formal logic statement in the premise to support a conclusion, which is the contrapositive of the premise. So this is a circular reasoning. And we are looking for two claims, one is the contrapositive of the other, in the correct answer choice. Only E fits the bill.

rikihsu · 发表于 2011-7-6 01:38:09

这题好晕啊。
我用every排除ACD
BE都用了any，然后题目是XXXX not support..not allow (support 前 allow 后) ---> rephrase: no one is allowed ...without support (allow 前 support 后)
B: husband not divorced...not have affair (divorced 前, affair 后) ----> rephrase: no one divorced...have affair... (divorced 前, affair 后)
E: husband not divorced...not have affair (divorced 前, affair 后) ----> rephrase: no one have affair ...divorced...(affair 前 , divorced 后) -----> 同题目

可能是侥幸哈哈!

penny307 · 发表于 2011-9-18 17:08:29

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Conclusion: The following claim is wrong: If a democratic activity has no government support, then the government does not allow that activity.

Premise: The following claim is wrong: If a democracy is allowed to be pursued, then that democracy must have government support.

Basically using a formal logic statement in the premise to support a conclusion, which is the contrapositive of the premise. So this is a circular reasoning. And we are looking for two claims, one is the contrapositive of the other, in the correct answer choice. Only E fits the bill.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/6 1:06:13)

dear sdcar2010，I am quite confused by this question. In my opinion,the sentence following the word "without" is a premise.so the sentence " No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support" equals to " if there is not a government support,no one is allowed to pursue democracy ”.
so Conclusion: The following claim is wrong: If a democratic activity has no government support, then the government does not allow that activity.

Premise: The following claim is wrong: if there is not a government support,no one is allowed to pursue democracy .
please correct it . thx.

GMAT 逻辑分析题 (25)

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()