|
GWD6-Q38: Three large companiesand seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potentialmilitary applications. If the governmentregulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturingspecifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere. In this case, therefore, since none of theseven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new setof manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able toremain in business. Which of thefollowing is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies? A. Noneof the three large companies will go out of business if the government does notregulate the manufacture of the product. B. Itwould cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a newset of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the productionlines of the large companies. C. Industrylobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating theindustry. D. Assemblyof the product produced according to government manufacturing specificationswould be more complex than current assembly procedures. E. Noneof the seven small companies currentlymanufactures the product to a set of specifications that wouldmatch those the government would institute if the industry were to beregulated.
在网上看了很多帖子，这道困扰我很久的逻辑貌似有了一点思路，大概的逻辑链应该是：
政府调控了产品标准→七家小公司没有能力转变生产线使其服从这个标准→只有三家大公司可以掌管生意
选择E我能够理解。。。。。
不过，因为assumption大多是取非的做法，我的问题是对A的取非问题：
A. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product
如果对A取非后是 如果政府不调控那大公司无法存活呢？（取非none of）
还是 如果政府调控后没有大公司可以存活呢？（取非does not)
还是 如果政府调控后有公司可以存活呢？（两个都取非，双重否定=肯定？那是不是意味着就是原句的意思？）
好吧。。。有点复杂。。。大致的意思就是如果句子里有两个否定词我应该怎么取非呢？
谢谢各位逻辑N人赐教。。。
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-7-21 13:22:37
收藏
收藏
楼主
