[求助]请教lsat-0110-4-26。谢谢！

4.     arent P: Children will need computer skills to deal with tomorrow’s world. Computers should be introduced in kindergarten, and computer languages should be required in high school.

Parent  That would be pointless. Technology advances so rapidly that the computers used by today’s high schools would become obsolete by the time these children are adults.

Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter parent P can make to parent Q’s objection?

(A) When technology is advancing rapidly, regular training is necessary to keep one’s skills at a level proficient enough to deal with the society in which one lives.

(B) Throughout history people have adapted to change, and there is no reason to believe that today’s children are not equally capable of adapting to technology as it advances.

(C) In the process of learning to language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology.

(D) Automotive technology is continually advancing too, but that does not result in one’s having to relearn to drive cars as the new advances are incorporated into new automobiles.（C）

(E) Once people have graduated from high school, they have less time to learn about computers and technology than they had during their schooling years.

答案给的是C。我认为应该是D。

D的意思是从汽车来看，即使技术不断进步，也不必重新学开车。完全对 Parent P的观点构成支持，而且相当合理。C只是说增加互动，并不构成直接的支持。

26.   Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.

Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.

Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?

(A) Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture.

(B) Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less land would be beneficial.

(C) Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas for greater population density.

(D) In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests.（B）

(E) The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our natural resources due to overpopulation.

答案给的是B。我认为是D。从Hampton的话：improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture可得知，他也是承认农业用地还会增加，只不过是without significantly 。由此可知两个人都同意D：population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests。

不知大家意见如何。谢谢！

4。题干意思：P可用下列哪一个理由去反对Q。P的观点是应教计算机。Q认为不用。D项用类比方式表示不必教，支持Q的观点，而不是题干要求的反对Q。C项才是认为应教。

26。D选项是说ERODE，WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY 增加一点土地怎会严重到ERODE的程度，都承认用土地会增加，但HAMPTON不会认为会ERODE，相反，他认为技术的进步会解决粮食和土地的矛盾。D错。B正确。双方都认为应提高土地产量。

不同意lawyer_1:

4:你对D项的理解有误，D是用类比的方式表明：应该现在就教电脑，因为就汽车的例子来看即使将来技术提高，也不需要重新学习就能handle。所以D正好坚持P。

26：从kim原文根本不能refer出他认为某个research ...would be beneficial，所以B没道理。而对于D，即使只增加一点点，从逻辑角度来讲，那也叫erode。D是很明确的。

请大家再帮助指教！

补充4

1。C项楼主漏掉东东,应为：In the process of learning to work with any computer or computer language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology.

2。Q的观点是：现在学的东西，将来会过时（OBSOLETE）。D选项的意思是:现在学了，将来不用再学（尽管技术进步了）。并没有说现在学的东东，将来会不会过时，所以反对不了Q。举个例子，过去开手动挡车，现在开自动档车。一般不用学了，但手动挡那些知识过时了，比如离合。当然，在开手动档过程中，掌握了一些基本能力，这些不会过时，这正是C所说的。

I agree with C and B.

1. Personally I think C is directly countering the point. I am not sure analogy is good enough for logic reasoning in GMAT or LSAT. Anyone has more examples?

2. Both would agree with B, even though it is not explicit. The whole argument is about the relation between land and human living such as food production. Kim says food production and urban living will require more land, limiting the space for wild life. Of course if the human living requires less land, as with B, Kim will love. Right?

With what Hampton says, I do not believe he will agree with D. On the contrary, that is exactly what he is trying to prove would not happen with the technology.