PREP2008 逻辑笔记-117-喜欢的一个CR题

qinage

太爱这题了，把我绕得差不多了，于是重新贴出来，希望帮到大家：

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

OA is C.

题意：为了减少犯罪，管理者采取了一些措施，其中一项就是不让罪犯上大学课程。但是这个行为却与管理者的目标相悖，因为那些出狱后的罪犯里面，上了大学课程的比其他的，犯罪要少很多。

问：这个argu是基于什么assumption啊？

自己一想：就是本来以为上大学没用，发现居然是有用的呗。---看看有没有match的答案

答案A：在狱中不能上大学课程，不大可能阻止一个本来要犯罪的人犯罪。

答案C：上了大学课程的人，不会比那些没上大学课程的人，更不可能犯罪。---管理者本来以为上了大学也不会减少犯罪率，结果发现出狱后的人群里面，上大学的的确减少犯罪率了。

后记：答案是评估 上大学的人的，与不上大学的没关系！

总结：逻辑啊逻辑，果然就是在说：什么是无关！！！

GMATYedda

117. News: to reduc crime rt, the gov ban inmates on taking college-level courses
                The act is neg of gov’s final goal cuz innmates with courses comit fewer crimes than without courses.
        问这个argument是基于什么assumption
A：不能上大学课不大会阻止任何人去犯他们已经想要犯的罪 --- 原结论是说政府没有意识到上大学课能够帮助减少犯罪率，而A的选项是说上大学没用，所以相反，错。
B：过去的罪犯不再比一般人要更容易犯罪了。 ---我们讨论的是大学课是否有用，但是这项assumption既不能加强论点，也提到了文中没有的人群。我认为是无关。
C： 选择上大学课的人犯罪率并不会一开始就已经低于那些不上的人。说明大家的起点本一样，所以这个assumption给因和果搭了一个桥梁：一方面说大学课上过的犯罪率更低，但是为什么说和gov的最终目标相矛盾呢？是因为原来没上过的和想上的都有一样的犯罪几率。所以gov的最终目的会因为不让他们上大学课而无法实现。
D： high school level原文没提到，无关
E： 最终目的是减少犯罪，无中生有，无关。

keruan

promise: government attempt to reduce CR, some inmates been denied CLC , those take CLC got fewer CR
conclusion: the government action(some inmates deny CLC) counter its goal.
(CR=crime rate, CLC=college-level courses).
GAP: those take CLC got fewer CR because of they take CLC

A "anyone" too strong
B compare with "general population" irrelevant
C correct  
D "high school level course" irrelevant
E "ultimate goal" irrelevant

a31314431

这个题！我发现。。原来重点在于我们不能把A选项这个双重否定的句子 Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
改成肯定句，换句话来说就是这句话的意思是
        
          （我们不妨设take courses为A， 犯罪率降低为B）
            
             非A 推不出 B
如果我们要是对这句话进行双重否定变肯定则为
Being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

         简单来说也就是  
                A 推得出 B  （如果此时取非的话，显然就直接击败了结论）

而显然 非A 推不出 B 和 A 推得出 B 根本不是完全等价的，这就让我想起来了一句话
  没钱肯定活不好， 但是有钱也不一定活得好。

所以，我们取非必须直接对原句取非，则为 Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
           
         简单来说就是
                                        非A推得出B，而这就对 A推得出B没有任何影响了，从而不是结论的假设。