OG12 CR 30 很简单的题但是对于OG某个错误选项的解释有点迷糊...

若雪 · 发表于 2011-6-28 13:18:26

Robot satellites relay important communications and identify weather patterns. Because the satellites can be repaired only in orbit, astronauts are needed to repair them. Without repairs, the satellites would eventually malfunction. Therefore, space flights carrying astronauts must continue.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Satellites falling from orbit because of malfunctions burn up in the atmosphere.
(B) Although satellites are indispensable in the identification of weather patterns, weather forecasters also make some use of computer projections to identify weather patterns.
(C) The government, responding to public pressure, has decided to cut the budget for space flights and put more money into social welfare programs.
(D) Repair of satellites requires heavy equipment, which adds to the amount of fuel needed to lift a spaceship carrying astronauts into orbit.
(E) Technical obsolescence of robot satellites makes repairing them more costly and less practical than sending new, improved satellites into orbit.

Argument Evaluation
Situation Robot satellites used to predict weather patterns must be repaired in orbit by astronauts, so space flights carrying astronauts must continue.
Reasoning What information would most weaken the argument? The passage provides the information that the satellites would probably malfunction unless they are repaired and that to perform those repairs, astronauts are needed. The conclusion is that space flights with astronauts must continue. The unstated assumption is that there is no good alternative to repairing the satellites. Any information that challenges this assumption will weaken the argument. A less expensive and more practical way of preventing the problems that would arise from failure to repair rapidly obsolescing satellites is to replace them with new, improved satellites. This suggestion of a better alternative weakens the argument more than do any of the other options.
A This tells us that a malfunction can destroy the satellite—information that provides some additional support to the argument.
B Since satellites are judged to be indispensable, this statement suggests that their repair continues to be necessary—this somewhat strengthens the argument.
C The argument does not assume that space flights are funded by the government, but this
statement tells us that they are at least partly government-funded, and that at least some of that funding is to be eliminated. This makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur—but it does not undermine the claim that such flights are needed.
我知道C的主要问题是out of scope。文中没说government-funded。但是我想问黄色高亮部分这两句话在这边有什么作用？
如果说it makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur不就正好削弱了文中的结论么？破折号加上but转折后面部分又有什么用类。。。
D Increased fuel costs do not weaken the claim that space flights with astronauts are needed.
E Correct. This information challenges the assumption in the argument that there is no good alternative to repairing the satellites.

今天重看OG的时候突然一下子转不过弯来了....如果太钻牛角尖的话不要PIA我哈~~
求NN出现~

jianaozhonghua · 发表于 2011-6-28 15:49:15

好纠结的问题，平民尝试，等待NN
先翻译：
This makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur—but it does not undermine the claim that such flights are needed.
这个（前提：政府与航空挂钩却更要投资民生）让维修航天飞机的可能性减小了一点
但是并没有削弱结论：航天飞机的空中维修是必要的。

只有but后面的话给出了最直接的不选C的原因。如果没有but后面的话。
OG对C的解释就停留在：政府投资民生的倾向可能会给航空维修带来经济困难使得航空维修可能性变小。
（没有but后面的话，就没说为什么削弱了原文的conclusion: space flight carrying astronauts must continue. ）

所以but后面的话是必须的。

另外：
说it makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur可以在小程度上削弱space flight carrying astronauts must continue 但是远远不及E的说法。
晕。自己也有点乱了，总之but后面是说清楚C不如E weaken的强。
（如果彻底搞错了也别怪我，我实在水平有限，看到平日热心助人的若雪MM发问才努力解答。。）

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2011-6-28 20:24:40

You need to pay attention to the main conlcusion:
Space flights carrying astronauts must continue.

The premises supporting this conclusion are:
1) Space flights with astronauts are needed to repair satellites
2) Without repairs, the satellites would eventually malfunction

The assumption is that we NEED these satellite to function.

E) points out that we do not need these old satellites anymore since new ones are cheaper and better.

C) on the other hand only make the spaceflight difficult to make without REMOVING the root cause to make such flights. For example, the statement "I must eat this drug to fight cancer." If the drug's price is doubled, would your statement be weakened? No. You still need to eat the drug to survive, although you might die from bankcrupcy instead of cancer. But if there is a new, cheaper, alternative treatment, then sure, you do not need to eat the old drug anymore. Thus, the availability of an alternative would weaken the strength of the original statement.

若雪 · 发表于 2011-6-29 10:50:47

好纠结的问题，平民尝试，等待NN
先翻译：
This makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur—but it does not undermine the claim that such flights are needed.
这个（前提：政府与航空挂钩却更要投资民生）让维修航天飞机的可能性减小了一点
但是并没有削弱结论：航天飞机的空中维修是必要的。

只有but后面的话给出了最直接的不选C的原因。如果没有but后面的话。
OG对C的解释就停留在：政府投资民生的倾向可能会给航空维修带来经济困难使得航空维修可能性变小。
（没有but后面的话，就没说为什么削弱了原文的conclusion: space flight carrying astronauts must continue. ）

所以but后面的话是必须的。

另外：
说it makes it less likely that needed space flights with astronauts would occur可以在小程度上削弱space flight carrying astronauts must continue 但是远远不及E的说法。
晕。自己也有点乱了，总之but后面是说清楚C不如E weaken的强。
（如果彻底搞错了也别怪我，我实在水平有限，看到平日热心助人的若雪MM发问才努力解答。。）

-- by 会员 jianaozhonghua (2011/6/28 15:49:15)

嘻嘻~~我突然有种平时回答问题大大攒了RP的感觉诶~~~

这个（前提：政府与航空挂钩却更要投资民生）让维修航天飞机的可能性减小了一点
但是并没有削弱结论：航天飞机的空中维修是必要的。

我第一遍做OG没看manhattan的时候也是这么想的~~但是后来我看到manhattan强调对于weaken的题目.答案是make the conclusion less likely to be valid. 而且强调了Less likely...所以我就觉得可能性减小也可以了。。

不过我同意你的说法~肯定是没有E好啦~~~我自己在那边默默纠结~~~
谢谢你的回答噢！！

若雪 · 发表于 2011-6-29 11:20:01

You need to pay attention to the main conlcusion:
Space flights carrying astronauts must continue.

The premises supporting this conclusion are:
1) Space flights with astronauts are needed to repair satellites
2) Without repairs, the satellites would eventually malfunction

The assumption is that we NEED these satellite to function.

E) points out that we do not need these old satellites anymore since new ones are cheaper and better.

C) on the other hand only make the spaceflight difficult to make without REMOVING the root cause to make such flights. For example, the statement "I must eat this drug to fight cancer." If the drug's price is doubled, would your statement weakened? No. You still need to eat the drug to survive, although you might die from bankcrupcy instead of cancer. But if there is a new, cheaper, alternative treatment, then sure, you do not need to eat the old drug anymore. Thus, the availability of an alternative would weaken the strength of the original statement.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/28 20:24:40)

Thanks for your answer. I get most part and certainly agree with you. Thanks a lot

But I still have question based on Manhattan CR, which is "for weaken problem, the answer does not necessary to be the opposite of the conclusion, it may make the conclusion less likely to be valid."

I think C may make the conclusion less likely to be valid, therefore, I cannot really say it's a wrong choice.
Could you please help me with this part.

By the way, I mark your thread and am reading it now and feel like the radiant light casting the sky. Thanks again.

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2011-6-29 11:38:07

The question stem says "most seriously weaken" for a reason.

C) makes the spaceflight difficult, not impossible or unnecessary. For one thing, we do not know if the spaceflight is supported by the government ONLY. For another, we do not know if a wealthy guy might pay for such flights out of his or her own pocket. Making the flight difficult is different from STOPPING the flight.

The main conclusion is:
space flights carrying astronauts must continue.

If C) is right, even if it means that we have to reduce the number of flights, we simply cannot stop making the flight.

But E) removes one assumption of the main conclusion. Thus, E) MOST seriously weakens the argument

若雪 · 发表于 2011-7-1 06:53:26

Thanks SDCAR ^_^

xfi883 · 发表于 2011-7-1 08:41:54

注意：关键在于你没有翻译正确：needed space flights，此处“needed”是形容词，意思是“修复所需要的”，因此，并没有说卫星不需要飞船上天。只不过是“所需的”飞船因为经费问题不能上天。

若雪 · 发表于 2011-7-1 13:43:15

注意：关键在于你没有翻译正确：needed space flights，此处“needed”是形容词，意思是“修复所需要的”，因此，并没有说卫星不需要飞船上天。只不过是“所需的”飞船因为经费问题不能上天。

-- by 会员 xfi883 (2011/7/1 8:41:54)

这下彻底明白了！！！谢谢斑竹大人~~~（鞠躬~~~

本贴相关题目 OG-12-CR-30 | GMATPrep-2007E2-CR-56 (IPFA)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

OG12 CR 30 很简单的题但是对于OG某个错误选项的解释有点迷糊...

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()