[求助] OG12 CR 109，这道题的讨论貌似很少，求各位NN解答

lsyChris1989

109.Springfield Fire Commissioner:The vastmajority of false fire alarmsare prankcalls made anonymously from firealarm boxes on street corners. Sincevirtually everyone has access toa privatetelephone, these alarm boxes have outlived theirusefulness. Therefore, we propose toremove the boxes. Removing theboxes will reduce the number of prankcalls without hampering people's abilityto reporta fire.

Which of the following, if true,most strongly supports the claimthat the proposal, if carriedout, will have the announced effect?

(A)  The fire department traces all alarmcalls made from private telephonesand recordswhere they
      came from.

(B)   Maintaining the fire alarm boxes costsSpringfieldapproximately $5 million annually.

(C)   A telephone call canprovide the fire department with more information about the nature andsize of a fire
      than can an alarmplaced from an alarm box.

(D)   Responding to false alarms significantly reduces the fire department'scapacity for responding to fires.

(E)   On any given day, a significantpercentage of the public telephonesin Springfieldare outof service.

先说下我的思路：
B.无关信息，并且slightly weaken the conclusion
C.虽然说了alarm box的缺陷，但是并不能支持结论，因为结论是去除alarm boxes有必要，因为1.可以减少prank calls；2.不会影响正常的消防报警。C只是说了telephone 比alarm box好，但是并不能因此就去掉alarm boxes，因为很可能降低人们报警的效率，e.g:没带手机，没电话，发生火警的地点本该有的alarm box被拆除了。而且也没有减少prank calls的作用。
E.赤裸裸的weaken,telephone在任何一天都有很大几率out of service，所以alarm boxes 不能拆。

小弟我纠结的是A和D, 我知道A是support, 可以说的通，但是D虽然只是说明了false alarm会降低消防局对火警的反应能力，应该算是一个background information,但貌似也从另一个角度支持了结论啊，因为false alarms会影响正常报警，所以去掉alarm boxes就不会影响正常消防报警了，好像还是支持了第二点要素吧...

这道题看过一些讨论帖后还是想通了，但是感觉脑子里还是没建立起条件反射，就是很难区分A和D这种情况，怎样把看似支持的background information和真正的选项清晰的区分开？这个问题不搞透感觉下次遇到这种情况还是会错，还是会被D选项干扰，求各位NN提点！非常感谢哈~！

soulwangh

A is right because it ties to the conclusion:"Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire".
D is wrong because it is not.  Improvement of the capability of fire department is indeed very important. However, it has no bearing on our conclusion.
In "foundation of Gmat" from Manhattan, an example vividly illustrates this issue.
Premise: A company want to bribe the governor to dispose some toxic garbage  in to the river.
Conclusion: This approach is cost-saving in short-term for the company.
Stem: weaken.
Choice A : The manager of the company will be sentenced into jail for many year if some people find this evil action.
Wrong, because it has nothing to do with the short-term cost for the company.
Choice B： The action is immoral.
It is definitely Right in real world, but wrong in Gmat because the same reason above.
Choice C: An environmental group tests the river daily and prepares to report to the media immediately when they find the river is contaminated.
Right. Although it dose not mention the "cost" word directly,  this choice implies the bad behavior of the company will be stopped in the first place. Anyway, the cost-saving aim is impossible.
You see sometimes Gmat allows for "common sense" assumption.

yatotoris

赞同 理论什么的不现实但不得不承认有的时候很管用
比如在语法那区讨论的都好仔细啊 我不想看那么细致的解答 而且我觉得那样的思路违反了G的初衷 我就想知道怎么样我才能决策正确而不是把每一个细节细致入微

lsyChris1989

yatotoris 发表于 2013-11-3 16:55
我的感觉是 把答案带到文章中再顺一遍 感觉就出来了 因为两条都得搭上嘛 不过第一次做确实容易会把A给干掉 ...

感谢沙发！~哎，扫完OG后，发现逻辑是我现在pace最慢的，感觉CR有些选项还是需要稍稍进一步推理一下才行，就像这个A选项，trace the telephone--->人们害怕被消防局逮到恶作剧----->所以不敢乱报警，但是人们正常报警不会被限制，因此要拆除那些该死的alarm boxes.

我也是以上来就把A当无关信息给干掉了....哈哈，说实话GMAT CR真的像GWD说的那样， 要练到一种感觉，否则在考场上我觉得真心时间不够，就像OG里有篇阅读不是讲优秀的经理人都是用直觉解决问题么，但是这种直觉是建立在很多年的经验和专业知识的基础上才能练就的。

哈哈，话太多了，不好意思~

yatotoris

我的感觉是 把答案带到文章中再顺一遍 感觉就出来了 因为两条都得搭上嘛 不过第一次做确实容易会把A给干掉