一道题目，根本就没有看懂，求大神解答

勋允勋允 · 发表于 2018-6-25 00:29:47

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would
allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related
to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of
“papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner
of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. The author assumes which of
the following?
• The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
• The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
• Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
• The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
• Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

正确答案是C，我想知道这道题目怎么和美国文化和法律联系起来了，为什么需要这个假设？

cycgundam · 发表于 2018-6-25 11:40:48

Main conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.

勋允勋允 · 发表于 2018-6-25 21:27:34

cycgundam 发表于 2018-6-25 11:40
Main conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un ...

这一条已经在题目中明确说明了，还算假设吗？

cycgundam · 发表于 2018-6-26 10:39:18

嗯，我怎么好像没发全？再打遍吧。

Main conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.

Sub-conclusion: In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Premise #1: because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”

Premise #2: Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

从这个格式看，这个逻辑是相比比较复杂的。而假设可能存在多个，可能存在任何关联（Premise #1对Sub Conclusion或Premise #2对Main Conclusion，等等）中。而题目问的是：The author assumes which of the following? 这就证明只有一个选项正确，无论强弱；而其他选项必然错误。所以不存在“The Most of”之类的说辞。

选项A - 错，总统的诚实与否与本逻辑无关。

选项B - 错，看上去很像那么回事，但犯了和D一样的错误。待会一起解释。

选项C - 正确。最后解释。

选项D - 错。其实这个逻辑里有个假设Assumption，即"People will follow the government rules"，试想，如果人们不遵守这个规则，这就与Premise #2矛盾。毕竟Premise #2讲的是人们被政府的规则限制一些行为（如果人们完全不遵守，怎么可能会被限制呢？）。而选项D要么不符合这个假设，要么与逻辑无关。比如，如果American are not willing，然后反抗了，则与Premise #2和隐含假设矛盾；如果American are not willing，然后就没有任何行动（纯粹只是态度），则与逻辑无关，毕竟人民的态度认可与否不影响这个逻辑的结论。B选项的错误也在于违背了这个Assumption，且也无关。如果政府惩罚抵制者，则证明人民并没有完全遵守规则（也就无从谈起人民有没有被限制），且政府怎么惩罚对付抵制者也与本逻辑无关。

选项E - 错。类似于B和D的问题，然而退一步讲，美国人民要不要反抗是个态度问题，与该逻辑没有关联。

C正确是因为文章提到了“政府的行为是Un American”，然后给出了一个证明这个Un American的条件1,2。这就隐射条件1和2的存在能推导到Un American，也就等于与“AMerican”相违背。我不知道国内对于逻辑是怎么区分，这是典型的“A等于B，则A不等于B的反义”。

一道题目，根本就没有看懂，求大神解答

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()