lsat-sec1-1-1,10-->pumpkin转移

pony · 发表于 2003-7-15 00:42:00

1. Mr. West: Well, Ms. Smith, by how much do you plan to increase your donation to the cultural society this
year? You know how many worth while projects we do.
Ms. Smith: I’m not so sure of that. I was very upset about the statue you purchased last month. I think I’llgive no more money to your cause.
Mr. West: That’s all right: we’ll just put you down for the same amount that you gave last year.
Which one of the following words or phrases has been misinterpreted in the conversation?
(A) “increase”
(B) “you know”
(C) “worthwhile”
(D) “no more”
(E) “same amount”

偶不明白为什么是D选项。而且“we’ll just put you down for the same amount that you gave last year.”是什么意思？

10. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rat e of population growth. This analysis fail s t o recognize, however, t hat much of t he world’ s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.
Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn ?
(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption of the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

E选项怎样个说法？怎么是个假设呢？是属于那种类型的假设题？

pony · 发表于 2003-7-15 00:46:00

sorry,我一不留神发错了版面，见谅

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-7-24 19:31:23

pony 发表于 2003-7-15 00:42
1. Mr. West: Well, Ms. Smith, by how much do you plan to increase your donation to the cultural soci ...

1. Apparently, Ms. Smith does not want to put any money, and west thought that he does want to put " same exact amount of the money "

10. As we see from the question stem, its sufficient assumption being asked.

In most of the case, as constructing the core arguments from the question offered, there must be at least 1 of the new concept shown from the conclusion, and we need to connect new idea or concept to one of the premises as if we are bridging 2 points together.

Let's dive into the question and look for the premises and conclusion to spot the core argument first.

P1: Finite limit of earth's resources + Relentless rate of population growth ---> Scarcity of food

P2: Its wrong

P3: In USA, 1/2 of the corps fed to livestock, and 21 lbs of grain to 1 lbs of meat

C: There must be the other reason beside finite limit of earth's resources and relentless rate of population growth to cause scarcity of food.

Inference: what the argument really want to present is merely that the scarcity of food is not necessary for the condition of finite limit of the earth resources and relentless of population growth due to the fact that " we fed the animal 21 lbs for the crops to exchange for 1lbs of meat.

If A ( 21lbs of the crops to exchange 1bs of meat could be dealt more efficiently ), then B Scarcity of foods under the condition of finite limits of the earth's resources and relentless rate of population growth must not be necessary true.

First of all, argument prepositioned that mentioned exchange ratio could be dealt more efficiently without offering any evidence to support it.

Secondly, argument also prepositioned that there must be the other factor to guarantee the necessary condition as scarcity of foods.

A - Regardless of the preferences of people, if efficiency of exchanging ratio could be improved to certain level, scarcity of foods is not necessary to be happened under the conditions given.

B - Regardless of the prices of the foods, if efficiency of exchanging ratio could be improved to certain level, scarcity of foods is not necessary to be happened under the conditions given.

C - Regardless of being finite or not, if efficiency of exchanging ratio could be improved to certain level, scarcity of foods is not necessary to be happened under the conditions given.

D - Within the premises that we are discussing the crops of agriculturally devoted to the livestock are from almost 1/2 of the acreage, and we are specifically discussing the efficiency within this particular proportion of the acreage. As a result, it's out of scope.

E - Perfectly mentioned our point 1 - The efficiency could be improved by growing the other crops or even the same kind of the crops that human can consume would yield more foods for people.

lsat-sec1-1-1,10-->pumpkin转移

lsat-sec1-1-1,10

lsat-sec1-1-1,10-->pumpkin转移

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()