[揽瓜阁逻辑小分队] day1 重新开张了！

Ysandre

想带着大家每天坚持读英语，就拿来Source为鸡精的逻辑真题，每天带着大家打卡，希望大家能坚持每天学习+逻辑打卡；

大家可以在有限时间内阅读并分析逻辑链，本帖回复逻辑链结构和猜测的答案方向，可以看看谁猜的准！大家都是大侦探！

每日的答案和结构在揽瓜阁逻辑群中更新

揽瓜阁逻辑群加群方式在本文末尾

考试群：

GMAT入群／揽瓜阁入群方式：https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1382779-1-1.html

揽瓜阁阅读精读（读什么文章，大家读过就懂了）：

https://forum.chasedream.com/forum-25-1.html

公众号：1.考什么试

2.商校百科

申请群

1. ChaseDream 2023 MBA 申请／校友答疑／面试群：

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-863011-1-1.html

2.英国，新加坡，美国，法国，加拿大，香港，德国商科申请群：

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1387919-1-1.html

3. 行业分享交流／职业规划群：

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1388171-1-1.html

小红书：

1.留学+考试 最新消息 关注妥妥妥了 （小红书号：323014154）

2.求职+MBA 最新消息 关注元（小红书号：895404330）

朋友们！揽瓜阁逻辑小分队重新上线啦～每日材料我们仍旧会发布在ChaseDream GMAT 逻辑版块。

为了响应大家想拉群专门讨论2022揽瓜阁逻辑的要求，我们设立了小范围的打卡群（仅针对确定会打卡的同学），现作出揽瓜阁逻辑2022打卡群入群流程如下：

1.完成小分队任意三日的逻辑打卡任务（需回帖并截图），指路：https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1389723-1-1.html

2.向小蓝鸡发送关键字：【揽瓜阁逻辑2022】并附上三次任务截图后耐心等待入群即可。

3. 本次小分队活动为纯公益性活动，为了督促大家学习，采取严格的打卡审查制度，连续三日不打卡的朋友会被无情清退。

⚠️重要提醒：如您还不是GMAT交流群群友，请先申请进入GMAT交流群后再申请进入揽瓜阁逻辑2022打卡群

最新鸡麦群入口：

https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1382779-1-1.html

手机微信打开或者电脑网页打开均可，记得一定要登录再填，无需跳转APP

Day 1
1.        牛奶卖的好
大概意思是 一个学校里给学生本来只提供一种牛奶 后开开始提供A包装的和B包装两种牛奶 通过数据统计 B包装的牛奶比A买得更好 所以推断出B包装的牛奶更受学生喜欢。问这个statement based on 什么？
2.        风力发电
说的是globally 安装wind turbine 或导致气候恶化，然后conclusion是我们必须减少能源的使用，否则即使找到了另外一种能源也只会重蹈对气候的恶劣影响。 问加强。
另一种描述：说一切产生能源的东西都不同程度的污染环境，比如燃烧石油。现发现对环境（具体是大气层还是什么我忘了）已经造成了破坏，主要原因是人类过度用电。按照这个逻辑，下面哪个对？
3.        手套
Librarian反对拿rare书时用手套wear gloves。手上的油会对书的材料有損傷dirty things in their hands，问你为什么Librarian 还是反对？

二丫00

768. Public health expert: （Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive）. In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly, （it may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious）. And there is no reason to believe that
those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.
The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the public health expert’s argument?


逻辑链：
P1：增加公共健康的消息可能会起到反作用。——这是**论证的推论**，即从前提中推导出的一个结论或后果，用来增强论证的说服力。
P2：劝说人们听从这样过于谨慎的消息，会破坏政府在健康领域的声誉。——这是**论证的前提**，即提出了一个假设或理由，用来支持论证的结论。


A. The first is a conclusion for which support is provided, but is not the argument’s main conclusion; the second is an unsupported premise supporting the argument’s main conclusion.
No
B. The first is a premise supporting the only explicit conclusion; so is the second.
No
C. The first is the argument’s main conclusion; the second supports that conclusion and is itself a conclusion for which support is provided.
No
D. The first is a premise supporting the argument’s only conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
No
E. The first is the argument’s only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion.
Yes

二丫00

767. Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed
new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

逻辑链：
P1：增加incineration的使用作为一种安全的方式来处理化学废弃。
P2：但是incineration的成分显示40种未预料危险化学成分在2种已有incinerators 中。
C：新的incinerators 没有预防，如果增加这种incinerators 的使用，泄露将会更普遍。

逻辑思路：
这里面的逻辑缺陷是假设新的incinerators没有预防措施，而没有提供任何证据或理由来支持这一假设。这是一种滑坡谬误，即假设一件事情会导致另一件事情，而没有考虑到其他可能的因素或结果。这种谬误忽略了事物之间的复杂性和多样性，以及可能的干预和改变的机会。

为了避免这种逻辑缺陷，需要提供更多的信息和证据来支持或反驳新的incinerators是否有预防措施，以及这些措施是否有效。例如，可以提供新的incinerators的设计、运行、监测和维护的细节，以及与已有incinerators的比较。也可以提供关于incineration的成分和危险性的科学研究，以及其他处理化学废弃的方法的优缺点。这样，就可以更加客观和全面地评估incineration的使用作为一种安全的方式来处理化学废弃的可行性和合理性。

A. At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
对于两个报导的 incinerators ，职员只有粗略的训练，所以不需要多余的保障措施。选A
B. Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
其它处理化学废弃的方法，比如neutralization这种方法，并没有被证明比incineration更安全。
C. The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
已有的incineration的能力足够，不需要新的incineration。
D. The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
报导的频率不被预期
E. In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
说明很多情况都有可能

二丫00

766. When there is less rainfall than normal, the water level of Australian rivers falls and the rivers flow more slowly. Because algae whose habitat is river water grow best in slow-moving water, the amount of algae per unit of water generally increases when there has been little rain. By contrast, however, following a period of extreme drought, algae levels are low even in very slow-moving river water.
Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the contrast described above?

这是矛盾解释题，逻辑链：
P1：雨水更少的时候，Australian 河的水面下降，水流的速度更慢。
P2：algae生活在河水中，最好在水流速度慢的地方，当雨水很少的时候，algae 的数量会增加。
C：但是，经过一段时间极度干旱之后，即使是在水流速度慢的地方，algae 的数量也很少。

逻辑思路：
这种矛盾的原因可能是由于极度干旱导致的水温升高和光能增强，对algae的生长产生了抑制或损伤的作用。也就是说，一定有除了降雨量之外，影响A数量的重要因素，比如水温和光能是影响藻类生长的关键因素。因此，当雨水极少的时候，水温和光能的变化会对algae的生长产生不利的影响，使得algae的数量减少。


A. During periods of extreme drought, the populations of some of the species that feed on algae tend to fall.
极度干旱的时候， algae的天敌数量下降了，不是解释矛盾。
B. The more slowly water moves, the more conducive its temperature is to the growth of algae.
水流的速度越慢，气温对A生长的传导越有效。同样。
C. When algae populations reach very high levels, conditions within the river can become toxic for some of the other species that normally live there.
当A的数量很多时，环境对于其它物种有毒。
D. Australian rivers dry up completely for short intervals in periods of extreme drought.
在极度干旱的时候，河流整个干枯了，而不是水流，温度这些。选D。
E. Except during periods of extreme drought, algae levels tend to be higher in rivers in which the flow has been controlled by damming than in rivers that flow freely.
除了严重干旱外，A都是水流速度越慢，数量越多。

二丫00

765. To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

逻辑链：
P1：为了减少原材料浪费，S政府考虑丢弃家庭设备时要废物利用。政府计划在家庭设备被首次出售的时候收费，来覆盖废物利用的成本。
P2：如果在丢弃的时候被收费，消费者会考虑将旧物多用一段时间。
C：如果在废物利用的时候收取，将更会减少浪费。

逻辑思路：
这一段的逻辑漏洞是：结论（C）并不是由前提（P1和P2）所支持的。如果废物利用会发生其它的费用，即使政府对废物利用的成本进行了补贴，仍然不能减少浪费；其次，如果费用虽然在后端收取，但并没有有效减少相较于前端收费的浪费。都是对这一段不完整的逻辑链的挑战。


A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
增加处理成本，这是相对于fee更多的成本，是对结论有效的挑战。选A
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
费用会使制造商没有动力生产更耐用的物品？无关
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
对哪些新购买家庭设备的人而言，处理费用在几年内都不必要去支付。这一项支持后端收费，但是没有明确显示出实际人们买账与否。加强。
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
如果将人们用过的家庭设备出售，将没有必要支付处理费用。也没有明确显示出实际人们买账与否。加强。
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
很多不起作用被丢弃的家庭设备如果拿去修理，将会产生更高的费用。这是对结论的加强。

二丫00

762. In an attempt to produce a coffee plant that would yield beans containing no caffeine, the synthesis of a substance known to be integral to the initial stages of caffeine production was blocked either in the beans, in the leaves, or both. For those plants in which the synthesis of the substance was blocked only in the leaves, the resulting beans contained no caffeine.
Any of the following, if true, would provide the basis for an explanation of the observed
results EXCEPT:

逻辑链：
P1：咖啡因的产生或者在豆子里，或者在叶片里，或者在这两者中被阻断

C：对于只在叶片中被阻断生产咖啡因的植物，豆子里也不会含有咖啡因

逻辑思路：
这个逻辑链可能犯了**否定前件**的错误，也就是说，从一个条件语句的否定前件推出了否定后件，但这并不一定成立。例如，如果A，则B，不一定意味着如果不A，则不B。

条件语句是：如果咖啡因的产生在豆子里或者在叶片里，或者在这两者中被阻断，那么咖啡因的含量会受到影响。
否定前件是：咖啡因的产生只在叶片中被阻断。您的否定后件是：豆子里不会含有咖啡因。但是，这个推论并不一定正确，因为咖啡因的产生可能还受到其他因素的影响，比如基因表达，代谢途径，环境条件等。


A. In coffee plants, the substance is synthesized only in the leaves and then moves to the beans, where the initial stages of caffeine production take place.
更改了P，将P改为只在叶片里产生，然后转移到豆子
B. In coffee plants, the last stage of caffeine production takes place in the beans using a compound that is produced only in the leaves by the substance.
更改了P，表明第一步仅仅在叶片里合成，最后一步发生在豆子里
C. In coffee plants, the initial stages of caffeine production take place only in the beans, but later stages depend on another substance that is synthesized only in the leaves and does not depend on the blocked substance.
更改了P，第一次只发生在豆子里，然后第二步只发生在叶片里，而且跟阻断的物质无关，不能推导出结论
D. In coffee plants, caffeine production takes place only in the leaves, but the caffeine
then moves to the beans.
P：只发生在叶片里
Caffeine was produced in the beans of the modified coffee plants, but all of it moved to the leaves, which normally produce their own caffeine.
尽管在豆子里合成，但是豆子里合成的全部移动到叶片里

二丫00

761. Duckbill dinosaurs, like today’s monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill’s tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.
The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?
逻辑链：
P1：Duckbill dinosaurs有很长的尾巴，挥动速度快
P2：Monitor lizards用自己的尾巴来抵挡捕食者
C：Duckbill dinosaurs要用自己的尾巴来抵挡捕食者，要挥动得比Monitor lizards更快

逻辑思路：
首先，Duckbill dinosaurs（鸭嘴龙）和Monitor lizards（巨蜥）之间的类比可能不太恰当，因为它们属于不同的动物类群，有着不同的进化历史和生理结构。鸭嘴龙是鸟臀目恐龙的一种，而巨蜥是蜥蜴的一种。它们的尾巴的形态和功能可能有很大的差异，不能简单地假设它们的尾巴都可以用来抵挡捕食者。
其次，鸭嘴龙的尾巴可能并不是用来挥动的，而是用来保持平衡的。根据一些研究，鸭嘴龙的尾巴有着强大的肌肉和韧带，可以使尾巴保持直立的姿势，从而帮助鸭嘴龙在奔跑时保持稳定。如果鸭嘴龙要用尾巴来抵挡捕食者，它可能需要牺牲自己的速度和灵活性，这可能不是一个明智的选择。
最后，鸭嘴龙的尾巴挥动的速度可能并不取决于巨蜥的尾巴挥动的速度，而是取决于鸭嘴龙的尾巴的长度、重量、弹性和力量，以及鸭嘴龙面对的捕食者的种类、数量和行为。这些因素都可能影响鸭嘴龙的尾巴挥动的效果和必要性。

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill’s tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills’ fiercest predators.
是用Monitor lizards挥动尾巴得原理来解释D的功能
B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently
damaged from the impact.
说明Duckbill dinosaurs也是用尾巴来抵挡捕食者，但frequently damaged是个什么意思，不像加强
C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
尾巴并不是D抵抗捕食者的唯一工具，非加强
D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards
are.
完全无关
E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact.
是加强，答案选E

Lsssh

Mark一下！               

Sullyoon

1

Ruby冲710+

Day 1
1.        牛奶卖的好
大概意思是 一个学校里给学生本来只提供一种牛奶 后开开始提供A包装的和B包装两种牛奶 通过数据统计 B包装的牛奶比A买得更好 所以推断出B包装的牛奶更受学生喜欢。问这个statement based on 什么？
解释现象：是否存在他因？
2.        风力发电
说的是globally 安装wind turbine 或导致气候恶化，然后conclusion是我们必须减少能源的使用，否则即使找到了另外一种能源也只会重蹈对气候的恶劣影响。 问加强。
wind样本是否具有代表性？
另一种描述：说一切产生能源的东西都不同程度的污染环境，比如燃烧石油。现发现对环境（具体是大气层还是什么我忘了）已经造成了破坏，主要原因是人类过度用电。按照这个逻辑，下面哪个对？
3.        手套
Librarian反对拿rare书时用手套wear gloves。手上的油会对书的材料有損傷dirty things in their hands，问你为什么Librarian 还是反对？
wear gloves达不到其保护目的，或者会造成其他损伤