GWD2-Q38 求助

Aviva0307

Q38:
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.Thus, if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.


The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

1. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
   
2. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
   
3. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
   
4. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
   
5. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers’ survival as a guarantee of their survival
   
   答案是E，我选得是Ａ。能给我分析一下这个题吗？谢谢～～～
   

sdcar2010

The stimulus already says "if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation." Then (a) is not an assumption any more.  It is a premise.

Aviva0307

I see,thanks~~~

ruirui_hsu

The stimulus already says "if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation." Then (a) is not an assumption any more.  It is a premise.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/1/5 0:30:42)

Because of the word "if", I choose A. I thought "if" means without warrant........

sdcar2010

If = on conditon that

gmyy123

我和楼主一样，一开始看了A选项我没有排除，无关选项法排除了BCD，E选项一开始没读懂，确实有俩单词不认识。但是我又读了一遍题目，题干中指出，导致tiger数量decrease的原因是hunting，为此颁布legislation禁止hunting来确保老虎的survival。简单的逻辑主干就是，hungting=》decrease，legislation=》no hunting。因此想削弱结论很简单，要么hunting不是导致decrease的唯一原因，要么legislation不能限制hunting从而导致老虎数量继续decrease。我认为#1说的有理，题干既然已经说到了“if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation”，那么就没有必要纠结这个法令究竟有没有很好的执行了。所以我最后果断排除了A，选了E。这是我的一点拙见，希望对你有帮助。

teddybearj4

我跟LS的看法有点不一样，我感觉这道题好像不是weaken题，是找method of reasoning的flaw题呢~
首先开头第一句Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.表明了hunting doesn't decrease，tigers就会灭绝，是former是必要条件。
第二句说明countries会enforce the legislation，所以hunting doesn't decrease。
第三句说hunting doesn't decrease，就一定tigers数不减少。hunting doesn't decrease就变成充分条件了。

A选项我一开始也选错了，但是现在看看A，觉得就是第一句话的paraphase。本来就是必要条件，并没有指出reasoning里面的flaw。

我和楼主一样，一开始看了A选项我没有排除，无关选项法排除了BCD，E选项一开始没读懂，确实有俩单词不认识。但是我又读了一遍题目，题干中指出，导致tiger数量decrease的原因是hunting，为此颁布legislation禁止hunting来确保老虎的survival。简单的逻辑主干就是，hungting=》decrease，legislation=》no hunting。因此想削弱结论很简单，要么hunting不是导致decrease的唯一原因，要么legislation不能限制hunting从而导致老虎数量继续decrease。我认为#1说的有理，题干既然已经说到了“if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation”，那么就没有必要纠结这个法令究竟有没有很好的执行了。所以我最后果断排除了A，选了E。这是我的一点拙见，希望对你有帮助。

-- by 会员 gmyy123 (2011/7/11 16:42:20)

justinckn

打个比方 ，if someone says:" IF you touch me again, I will punch you in your face."
we do not need to assume that you will ever touch me again [ or you will not touch me.]
If = 假定的条件,无论这个假定的条件是否 “ 会” 实现 我都无所谓，我关心的只是在这个假定的条件下 的结论。