The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning of golf courses. And the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.
Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the authors’ argument?
a) Although the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is very small, the total number of lightning fatalities is many times greater. b) Electric blenders are among the safest housed hold appliances; were the author to compare fatalities from electrical appliances in general, she would get a much higher figure. c) Most people would rather take their chances with benders and golf games than with grizzly bears. d) Bears in general -- including black, brown, and cinnamon bears, as well as grizzly bears – kill many more people than do electric blenders. e) Statistics show that the number of times people use electric blenders each year exceeds the number of times people play golf each year, which in turn far exceeds the number of contacts people have with grizzly bears each year.
The answer is E. I first chose d). Is it wrong because "bears" covers much wider than "grizzly bears"?
我的体会是GMAT逻辑首先考察的是逻辑,然后才涉及对字词的精确理解. 这道题的解题,你要先理清它的逻辑关系,才能把握解题方向. 上文由 the number of people killed by bears = the number of people killed by blenders = the number of people killed by lightning 得出结论: same dangerous 但是,倘若每年使用blenders 的总人数, 还有play golf 的总人数远远大于接触灰熊的人数.那么结论显然不能成立了.( 你可以将something is dangerous理解为=被伤害人数/接触这东西的总人数)
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-11-11 07:18:00
楼主
