|
(拿OG171超速/告票题举例) 171. A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not. The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions? 〇 Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not. 〇 Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. 〇 The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors. 〇 Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. 〇 Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state highways not covered in the report.
大牛们都在玩儿逻辑的高深推理,对我们这样的菜菜来说,太难懂了! 我跟大家说个直观的举例解释,给文科的朋友看,希望有帮助:
3%的车有雷达,但是radar car占了ticket的33%;按照最一般的想象,3%的radar car就应该占3%的ticket,但是他们居然占了33%,所以作者认为,这33%必是这3%的radar car drivers反复speed创造出来的.所以说他们是regular
这里有这样的可能逻辑漏洞存在:这3%的radar实际是很乖的,但是,他们运气不好.警察TMD10年也不出来抓一回,结果就出动了怎么一次,抓的全是radar车主.那些没radar的车主实际更疯狂,但是执法的偏差,他们没被抓. 大家想想,如果拿执法的疏漏来说,说这些乖乖的radar车主是飚车狂,结论就有逻辑漏洞了!
所以答案是"排除取样偏差",他一口咬死,被抓的就是飚车狂.什么意思??????就是说:没被抓的都是乖孩子!从而排除了执法的偏差
K! 很好玩的逻辑题吧!本来它无理取闹,但是它恶人先告状,一口咬定这个.你还拿它没办法.这就是律师应该学习的呀!哈哈哈
我觉得这才是这道题的正解.正如OG解释所说:就是从isolated事件和regular事件入手, 真正这样理解透的人没几个. 什么A否B否... 我个人觉得ETS出题根本不跟你玩儿什么逆否,否,它就是看你思维的严密,更是一种日常生活中,正常的一般性思维的严密,是MBA必须的一种思维素质! 如果把它上升到XDF那样的数学一样的解法,那就不是ETS出题的中心了!!! 一家鄙言,欢迎探讨!
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-27 0:31:29编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-7-27 00:08:00
楼主