ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1804|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]大全-2-17

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-3-28 15:19:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]大全-2-17

17.   Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.


Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?


(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.


(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.


(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.


(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.


(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.



正解是A


請問B為什麼不行??

沙发
发表于 2005-3-28 23:27:00 | 只看该作者
B是原文没有提到的内容,当然不对了.原文没有比较啊.
板凳
发表于 2006-7-26 21:49:00 | 只看该作者

但是加强不一定需要原文有啊?

又想了一下,是不是因为原文是有小孩的工作人员有没有假期的比较,而非有没有小孩、是否工作的人之间的比较。所以B的比较没有意义?

请指教~


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-26 22:00:09编辑过]
地板
发表于 2007-12-2 16:17:00 | 只看该作者
B确实很搞。


原文推理:
降低压力-----》家庭快乐上升。
隐藏了一个assumption:压力和家庭快乐有关系
而A正好补上了这个GAP,是种补充条件式加强。




B说有小孩子并且工作的压力比无孩无工作的的要大。(无关比较,因为原文也没有说,无孩子无工作的压力小的人,家庭就一定快乐啊,所以是一个无关的参照物,也就是一个无关的比较了!)

    




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:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-6-21 00:29
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部