LSAT-7-4-23/LSAT-7-4-24

八戒 · 发表于 2003-12-3 10:27:00

每次先搜索，发现竟然又没有人提问过！！
郁闷得简直不行了！！为什么我专门错这种白痴题目！！！！
后来想一想，也好，也好，那也就有很多大牛帮我了！！
感激不尽ing！

23. The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. As Bell's president is well aware, however, in order to increase the worker's wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries. So, some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold.
The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses.
(B) Bell's management will refuse to increase its worker's wages.
(C) The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.
(D) Bell's president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase.
(E) Bell's workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase.

这道题目我觉得是一个逻辑推导方向的问题：
如果其中的in order to是做为必要条件，那也就是：
increase the worker's wages—》Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries
C作为答案一点问题没有。
可是，我觉得在很多题目中，作为目的介词（比如，in order to ， to ， so as to ， etc），所采取的措施却是做为目的的充分条件，比如该道题目也可以这么理解：
Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries—》increase the worker's wages
（这种推导在GMAT的RC中，weaken的思路大部分就是削弱措施没有办法达到目的，也就是断桥）
可是，如果这边这么理解，既Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries是作为increase the worker's wages的充分条件，那么C是否就有问题呀？
因为，前面的推导也能推出：
The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.—》increase the worker's wages
两个都是充分条件，如何判断C就为assumption呀？
我反而觉得E更妥当一点，无论对in order to的推导方向是如何理解的，E取非后对原文都是一种weaken。
请指教！

还有一道题目：
24. One sure way you can tell how quickly a new idea —for example, the idea of "privatization" —is taking hold among the population is to monitor how fast the word or words expressing that particular idea are passing into common usage. Professional opinions of whether or not words can indeed be said to have passed into common usage are available from dictionary editors, who are vitally concerned with this question.
The method described above for determining how quickly a new idea is taking hold relies on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) Dictionary editors are not professionally interested in words that are only rarely used.
(B) Dictionary editors have exact numerical criteria for telling when a word has passed into common usage.
(C) For a new idea to take hold, dictionary editors have to include the relevant word or words in their dictionaries.
(D) As a word passes into common usages, its meaning does not undergo any severe distortions in the process.
(E) Words denoting new ideas tend to be used before the ideas denoted are understood.
答案是D！
该如何理解呀？
我觉得Dictionary editors主要是判断a word has passed into common usage.的一种状态，B是一个很好的桥梁！
为什么错了？？

大家帮忙呀!!
八戒感激不尽!

Snazzy · 发表于 2003-12-3 11:51:00

hi, buddy, i am not phylosophor so i am not qualified to answer u the first question but the 2nd one:
the author wants to say people can decide how quickly a new idea passes to the population by deciding if the word or words representing the idea are passed to common usage. but the bottom line is the meaning is not distorted when the words pass by, otherwise the conclution is wrong

mindfree · 发表于 2003-12-3 13:52:00

1. In order to do A, B has to be true ==> A-->B. So B is required, not sufficient. For example, in order to get promoted, you have to have worked for the firm for over 3 years. Here work for over 3 years is required, not sufficient. It along does not necessarily garantee a promotion.

I can rewrite the sentence to: Unless you have worked for the firm for over 3 year, you would not get promoted. What do you think?

八戒 · 发表于 2003-12-3 14:43:00

以下是引用mindfree在2003-12-3 13:52:00的发言：
1. In order to do A, B has to be true ==> A-->B. So B is required, not sufficient. For example, in order to get promoted, you have to have worked for the firm for over 3 years. Here work for over 3 years is required, not sufficient. It along does not necessarily garantee a promotion.

I can rewrite the sentence to: Unless you have worked for the firm for over 3 year, you would not get promoted. What do you think?

mindfree:
我同意你的思路,in order to在你上述的例子中作为必要条件是没有错的!

但在有些例子中,我觉得理解为充分条件也没有错呀!
比如:

The government passed the stricter regulation in order to prevent the crime.

Obviously, in the view of the government, the stricter regualtion is sufficient to prevent the crime.
我们可以设计一个假设比如:
并不是因为社会道德下降的原因而导致犯罪的增加.

所以我觉得,在23题中,E是否更妥当一点!
当然也可以认为是无关!
但如果是C的话,是不是就只能通过in order to 在此是必要条件来推导呀?

请指教.....

八戒 · 发表于 2003-12-3 14:45:00

以下是引用Snazzy在2003-12-3 11:51:00的发言：
hi, buddy, i am not phylosophor so i am not qualified to answer u the first question but the 2nd one:
the author wants to say people can decide how quickly a new idea passes to the population by deciding if the word or words representing the idea are passed to common usage. but the bottom line is the meaning is not distorted when the words pass by, otherwise the conclution is wrong

多谢Snazzy!
明白了!

dorbear · 发表于 2003-12-4 08:54:00

[face=Verdana]In order to A, must B 只能是 A -> B ，而不可能有其他的形式。例子中：

The government passed the stricter regulation in order to prevent the crime.
Obviously, in the view of the government, the stricter regualtion is sufficient to prevent the crime.

理解是错误的。[/face]

八戒 · 发表于 2003-12-4 10:26:00

[face=黑体]我还是觉得关于in order to类似的推导方向有点疑问,让我们看一下OG中的例子吧:[/face]
132. Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.
Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety
officials' recommendation?
(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it took passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively
39
expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the
gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight
before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic
gases before they could exit the ariplane.

我觉得在此道题目中的推导方向应该是这样的:
passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases
-->prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation
因为从safety officials 的角度来看,他们觉得采取此项措施就可以避免乘客inhalation of the gases从而保证了乘客的安全.
我强调的是从因为从safety officials 的角度来看,所以passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases is sufficient to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation
而答案A也正是把这个桥梁给推断了,说明了这个措施并不是保证乘客安全的充分条件.
所以,我觉得在此道题目中,in order to 应该是推导所指的方向.
我翻了一下狒狒的笔记,发现狒狒也这么总结的:
by A , in order to B ; plan A , to B
的推导方向都是:
A -->B

In order to A, must B 只能是 A -> B ，而不可能有其他的形式。

这边有一个must,所以A-->B没有问题,可是如果把must去掉,箭头的方向是否就应该倒过来呢?
在23这道题目中,如果按照答案C的思路,的确是in order to A ,B 是A -->B的推导;
那么为在有些题目中,我觉得in order to的方向却是反的!
照理LSAT的逻辑推导应该是很严格,还是我没有参透!!

请大家指教!
不胜感激ing!

mariezhu · 发表于 2003-12-4 11:50:00

我看了看狒狒的讲义，好像must by A，in order to B的推理方向是： B－> A

dorbear · 发表于 2003-12-7 06:49:00

[face=Verdana]In Order To 有两种情形；一种表达必要条件的逻辑关系，通常是In Order to, Must/Have to; 另外一种不表达逻辑关系，只是表达目的和手段（XDF的逻辑教学在这个地方是错误的）。因此后者并不存在一种充分条件或必要条件的成分在其中。以OG为例子：

132. Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?
(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it took passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the ariplane.

这是一个典型的目的和措施类型，目的和措施之间既没有必要，也没有充分的逻辑关系。而进行削弱或加强，只要就措施的有效性举出一个正面或反面的例子就可以了。

跟上面相反，LSAT的例子确实前一种情况，有逻辑关系的表达In Order To.... Have to. 了解了以上的区别，就不难判断出各自正确的选项。

23. The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. As Bell's president is well aware, however, in order to increase the worker's wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries. So, some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold.
The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses.
(B) Bell's management will refuse to increase its worker's wages.
(C) The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.
(D) Bell's president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase.
(E) Bell's workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase. [/face]

雪落无声 · 发表于 2004-4-19 19:22:00

这么多NN的解释，看了还是不懂。太笨了

有人能给我讲讲这道题的分析思路嘛？

题干前提：no increase wage——》strike

increase wage——》sell subsidirary

结论：sell subsidiary

A取非，will go on strike

E为什么错？confusing

LSAT-7-4-23/LSAT-7-4-24

LSAT-7-4-23/LSAT-7-4-24

LSAT-7-4-23/LSAT-7-4-24

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()