两个逻辑题目请详细指教

1stzhang · 发表于 2003-4-4 21:33:00

23. Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.

The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true?

(A) Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers.

(B) Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success in prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault.

(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading.

(D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater fro publicly defended than for privately defended defendants.

(E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accused of “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.

24. Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chances discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator’s research.

(B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research.

(C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer.

(D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply.

(E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.

nobody · 发表于 2003-4-4 22:24:00

1.选项D说犯罪被起诉的采用公派律师和私人律师的被告比例相当，提干又说了请私人律师的好处，有机会免罪，得出结论commit lucrative crimes 的人（有钱请私人律师）更有机会免罪。其他选项不能帮助结论成立。
请大家补充。

shany · 发表于 2003-4-5 04:35:00

1.同意nobody. 要强烈关注at least ，明显的标志词，有时却可能是陷阱。

2.支持A. 原文有概念跳跃。后两句暗示The finding by serendipity does not directly bear on the funded research。改写后就是A.

1stzhang · 发表于 2003-4-5 23:10:00

shany,为什么D不对？我对你的第二题解释不是很明白，请再次指教。类似与这个的假使的题目如何思考呢？

shany · 发表于 2003-4-6 13:05:00

2.前提：investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research.
结论：serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery。

结论把Serendipity等同于anything that does not directly bear on the funded research,替换了概念.除非有必要条件only non-serendipity can directly bear on the funder research成立.即A.

关于D,你是否认为如果研究者未能获得资助，就不会受赞助商的约束，可以有意外发现？但文中已提到investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research.所以不仅不会有意外收获，甚至连预期的结果都困难。

欢迎讨论。

cranberry · 发表于 2003-4-6 13:55:00

2题，文中的结论是偶然发现不再是得到科学发现的路径了，D只是说，提出详细计划的科学家可以获得资助，文中讲的是获得资助的科学家如何如何，必须给财主提供进展情况，可是如果偶然发现也算一种进展的话，那么学者还是可以寻求偶然发现，来糊弄财主，但结论是学者不能那样，偶然发现不成了，那么一定是学者不能寻求意外发现，只有A假设满足，学者找的必须是直接相关的。
罗嗦了，不知有否帮助

两个逻辑题目请详细指教

两个逻辑题目请详细指教

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()