[求助]gwd-3-9

Q9:

Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo.  Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the studies?

1. The effect noted in the studies is not limited to patrons who have credit cards.
   
   
2. Patrons who are under financial pressure from their credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.
   
   
3. In virtually all of the cases in the studies, the patrons who paid bills in cash did not possess credit cards.
   
   
4. In general, restaurant patrons who pay their bills in cash leave larger tips than do those who pay by credit card.
   
   
5. The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card’s logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared

这道题偶也做错了，why not d, but b?

心理学家的假设是：当消费者看到信用卡LOGO的时候，就会想到自身的潜在消费能力要比现有的现金要大，因而会多付小费。

这个假设的反面就是,如果消费者觉得自身潜在的消费能力要比现有的现金少,就会少付.

B选项说，负有信用卡还债压力的消费者付的小费比较少.恰恰印证了心理学家的假设.因为消费者看到LOGO就想到还要还债....

是这样吗~？

D compares patrons who pay their bills in cash with those who pay by credit card, but the argument says only patrons who pay their bills in cash. So D cannot support the argument.

The conclusion is: seeing a credit-card logo then willing to spend more.

B says patrons who......tend to tip less when see a logo, supports the conclusion by saying that a logo made this effect.

再次求助。

原文说，心理学家认为是人们看到带有LOGO的单，会激发他们想到自己的付账能力远大于账单，所以给更多的小费。

原文的假设条件是：（1）看到账单确实能联想到自己的付账能力； 且（2）来这里的人大多数是付账能力较好的人。

B答案说：有财务危机的，看到账单，会联想到自己的付账能力，所以会少给小费。

这里只说明了（1），而未说明（2），也就是我们不知道到这家餐馆吃饭的人，其大多数的财务状况是好还是坏。。。

显然B不能作为假设，而答案说它是加强。

我以前对加强的理解是：一）找出事实来证明原题的结论是对的；二）找出原文的假设条件。

这里的B选项不是以上的（二），也不能是（一），它是怎么加强的？

这个问题也就相当于：加强和假设的区别在哪里？

1。你说得假设条件第（1）对，第（2）不是原文的假设，因为它取非后原文结论一样能成立。

2。假设和支持的区别。假设是原文结论的必要条件。它错，原文结论必错，所以可以用去非法验证。支持是使结论的说服力更强，它或者直接支持结论，或者是原文证据对结论证明力加强。假设是支持的子集。它可以是结论的必要条件（假设型），也可以不使结论的必要条件。验证的方法是问自己，该答案是否在某方面帮助了作者，使结论的说服力加强。

3。B是通过加强原文证据对结论的证明力来加强结论。即B说明看到LOGO会让人想到信用卡的状况，从而影响付TIPS行为。如果信用卡的状况是不好，则付TIPS少（B所说），如果信用卡的状况好，则付TIPS多（原文证据），是一个规律的两个方面。所以加强了结论。

lawyer_1说得好。我完全同意你的高见。

不过，不是我抬杠，是我没弄完全明白。

Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo.  Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.

我们假设后半句是对的。如果：现在来吃饭的人，全都是穷光蛋，大多数有财务危机的，那，前半句话就得不出来了呢。那心理学家的解释不就有问题了，换句话，他们的解释是建立在“来吃饭的大多数是财务状况好的”，我想在答案中，也应该包含这个暗含条件吧。

本句的结构是：现象A  <--------   推测原因B。。。这种结构的句子，我的理解是：用“由非B推非A”这种句子来加强。

所以，我觉得它的加强，应该是：“如果LOGO不能提醒用户的财务状况，则用户不会付更多钱。”

答案B说：Patrons who are under financial pressure from their credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.

穷得人看到了，会付更少。虽然我承认答案B确实说明了看到LOGO会对穷人有效果，但这两者有些差距哦。不一定说明，富人看到LOGO会有效果呢。。。。。。

1。"如果：现在来吃饭的人，全都是穷光蛋，大多数有财务危机的，那，前半句话就得不出来了呢。"你不觉得现在的社会是越有钱，越吝啬，越没钱越阔气吗。如果实在太没钱了，那就不敢去餐馆。不过，关键是原文没给这方面的任何信息。

2。你说的是因果型结论。非因非果只是很多种加强中的一种。

lawyer, 这题我是这样理解 你瞧对不对

LOGO使人感觉有钱 就多付小费

支持即

没钱 就少付小费

即A-->b , ask for support, that is -A---->-B

好吧，lawyer_1你赢了。我就这么记下来吧。