求助-XDF-7-值得推敲!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am pretty sure about this question before, however just realized that maybe my previous understanding is not right:

A((必要条件) is needed to do B(充分条件) ???????,

in above sentence, we can induce the relationship between a and b as:

A---> B or B--->A

Stronger patent laws are needed to protet invetions from being pirated, With that protection, manufactures would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies, Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer's productivity.

which of the following conclusion s can most properly be drawn from the informatin above

A)...

C) Manufactures will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws

(Protect investions->Stronger P.L.

Protect investions->investments

Investment->increase productivites

E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productitity for many manufacturers

(Stronger P.L ->rotect investions

Protect investions->investments

Investment->increase productivites)

E错误：Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer's productivity.是BACKGROUND INFORMATION,不是逻辑的主题；另外， improvements in productitity for many manufacturers中的MANY也明显有问题

D是题目前两句的对接

the answer given by XDF is E

So can I assume y agree with the relationship between "Stronger patent laws and protet invetions from being pirated " is

"Stronger patent laws (必要条件) are needed to protet invetions from being pirated(充分条件)"

再回答你的问题，我早饭只有和中饭一起吃了。哈哈，先开个玩笑。

首先注意题干中的 can most properly be drawn from the informatin above而不是must be  properly be drawn from the informatin above.也就是说，下面选项很可能不是严格的按逻辑推理必然推出的（否则会用must be的）。

根据Stronger patent laws are needed to protet invetions from being pirated，Stronger patent laws 是 protet invetions from being pirated的必要条件。既然是条件，那么有了这个条件，则结论（protet invetions from being pirated）就很可能被推出。

再加上你的推理，

Protect investions->investments

Investment->increase productivites

则，E是正确的选项。

而C) Manufactures will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws的意思是说：

if there are not stronger patent laws,则Manufactures will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies .

而原文顶多也就是would not be encouraged to invest,所以C应该不正确。

请问hl2006MM,这些题出自XDF的题中的什么部分，包含在逻辑大全或GWD或天上里吗？是不是有原来的讨论链接呢？

H GG, first this question came from XDF-Section 1-#7, unfortunately I don't know whether it has been included in GWD or TIANSHAN, only because I have not yet touch those.

actuall GG, I still kind of confused with this question:

if

根据Stronger patent laws are needed to protet invetions from being pirated，Stronger patent laws 是 protet invetions from being pirated的必要条件

Protect inventions->investments

Investment->increase productivites

Then:

Protect invention->Stronger patent laws (如果对此项取非,no stronger patenlaws->no protect inventions)

then follows:No protect inventions ->no investments-> no increase productivies (decrease)

So the answer should be C,

if E is correct then the logic relation should based on Stronger patent laws->Stronger patent law

No protect inventions ->no investments-> no increase productivies你是不能推出的。

根据原文， With that protection, manufactures would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies, Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer's productivity.你只能推出 protect inventions -> investments->  increase productivies，其否命题是不成立的。而且，原文顶多也就是would not be encouraged to invest,与C will decrease investment 是不同的概念，所以C应该不正确。

至于E为什么正确，其实我上面已经解释了（不尊重我的劳动阿，哈哈）。再试着解释一下:

因为Stronger patent laws 是 protet invetions from being pirated的必要条件，所以才是可能推出。如果是充分条件，则E就变成must be推出了。这也就我上面强调的（既然是条件（虽然只是必要条件，不是充分条件），那么有了这个条件，则结论（protet invetions from being pirated）就很可能被推出）。

注意，如果Stronger patent laws 是 protet invetions from being pirated的充分条件，那题干肯定会问你，must be 而不会是can most properly be drawn from the informatin above。

实事求是，放在一边的饭都冷了。下次在大街上遇到我，别忘了请我吃饭啊。

希望这次能讲的清楚一些了。

y know H GG, I think my brain did not function well while I was reading y explanatin the first time.. sometimes my brain does that, now I totally understand, thanks a million, hopefully, like y said had i run into y someday,surely it will be my treat !

and my sincerely regards to your brunch-- LOL