GMAT 逻辑分析题 (25)

sdcar2010

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.

Dominicz

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-11-30 23:52
这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不supportWrong.It should be: 这道题中的 ...

同意！               

mmmmmignon

原文意思是只有支持了才能有allow
一件事情是另一件事情发生的前提
同样的只有affair了才有离婚

echogmj

thx for sharing ~~~

ciccyqin

题目好绕...BE的区分，分享一下我综合前N个大牛的思路之后的想法~

《原文》
premise: if not support, not allow.
conclusion: if not support, not allow.

《选项》
conclusion: if not divorced, not have affair.
premise:
B：if divorce, have affair. =>逆否：If not have affair, not divorce.
E：if affair, divorce.=>逆否：if not divorce, not have affair.
E is correct, since its 逆否=原文。

醒醒Shine

对不起！我又回头看了sdcar的解释，终于明白了。
我已开始没想通原句的No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support. (双重否定就等于肯定)，所以等于 If a democracy is allowed to be pursued, then that democracy must have government support.

生疏了，但是终于懂了！

醒醒Shine

cc621josh 发表于 2010-12-10 14:41
E is the answer, right?E is more strictly parallel if saying like this :"The claim that any husband  ...

楼上，你说的“because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No husband who has an extramarital affair is not divorced from his wife," while "every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced" has the same meaning.”就是：
not affair→not divorce，so   affair→divorce

这样不是逆否啊，为什么说是the same呢？T^T
我真的没明白
求解答。。。

醒醒Shine

单调唱 发表于 2012-5-8 15:02
前面的讨论很长，不过我觉得这题就是，如果你要证明A错，你可以通过证明A的逆否命题是否错误来判断A错，A和 ...

E选项确实是原命题和逆否命题的关系，所以同真同假。
但是题干给的例句并不是原命题和逆否命题的关系啊：not support → not allow；not support→not allow。是完全一样的啊。
E选项是：premise：affair →divorce；conclusion：not divorce→ not affair。

这样的话，这俩的逻辑就不一样了啊！
T^T 好难过都做错了 求解答

virgmat

单调唱 发表于 2012-5-8 15:02
前面的讨论很长，不过我觉得这题就是，如果你要证明A错，你可以通过证明A的逆否命题是否错误来判断A错，A和 ...

这样说明白点了

单调唱

前面的讨论很长，不过我觉得这题就是，如果你要证明A错，你可以通过证明A的逆否命题是否错误来判断A错，A和A的逆否是同真同假的。所以
在选项中，判断前后两个命题中，后面命题是否是前面的逆否命题即可。只有E选项符合。

数学里常见的证明方法，这种情况下，A的逆否更容易被证明是假的。