求nn帮忙理解下这题,答案并不能让人信服,求反驳

powers

10. In order topressure the government of Country S to become less repressive, somelegislators in Country R want to ban all exports from R to S. Companies in Rthat manufacture telecommunication equipment such as telephones and faxmachines have argued that exports of their products should be exempted from theban, on the ground that it is impossible for a country to remain repressivewhen telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of thatcountry.

Which one of thefollowing is an assumption on which the argument given by the manufacturersdepends?

(A) The governmentof S has recently increased the amount of telecommunication equipment it allowsto be imported into the country.

(B) Thetelecommunication equipment that would be imported into S if the exemption wereto be granted would not be available solely to top development officials in S.

(C) A majority ofthe members of R’s legislature do not favor exempting telecommunicationequipment from the ban on exports to Country S.

(D) Of all exportsthat could be sent to Country S, telecommunication equipment would be the mosteffective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government.

(E) Withoutpressure from Country R, the government of S would be able to continuerepressing its citizens indefinitely.





答案是B,我选的D


有人说用取非法选出B来的,可是我觉得B并不能比D更有效的作为assumption.

B"not be available solely to top development officials in S."只是在简单重复题目里面的"widely available to the population of that country."并不是什么assumption. 我理解assumption不是简单重复原题里面的信息,换句话说,题目里面都已经assume了,你还跟着再assume一遍干嘛?? 而且,关键是在于他没有指出widely available 又如何?"not be available solely to top development officials in S."又能把他们政府怎么样?  举个最简单的例子,大米麻油可以widely available可是能动摇暴政吗?不能啊. 按常识判断没有这个功能.只有这样一个assumption:大米麻油只要widely available,就可以有效的动摇暴政,这样才能推出来.那你应该告诉我你assume大米麻油是个多么厉害的暴政杀手.

我们看D"would be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government."D强调了有效性,那么,有效性+widely available那才是暴政杀手.


搞不清为什么D不对..求NN点醒我

littlexian

I chose D too.. haha, but I kind of understand what's going on.

D is a little bit out of the scope. Since there are only two points mentioned by the telecommunication companies. 1. telecommuunicaiton products should be exempted. 2. once telecommunication products become exception, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country. However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

B. mentions something which must happen first or 2. (from the above) would be not true. Therefore, it becomes the assumption in the case, in order to make sure "widely available to the population" would happen.

powers

欢迎讨论!

我解题的时候想象了这么一个场景:manufacturer去argue: My products should be exempted from the ban! 然后只说了一条理由:it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.  然后小布什一听就欣然同意了! 问小布什基于什么样的常识判断的,还需要另外什么共识,这个manufacturer才敢在小布什面前以此为唯一理由argue.

明显,这里应该是2个条件加一起才能成为充要条件 也就是 A+B =>C (AC已知,B为常识)

情景应该是这样, manufacturer和小布什或者所有人的脑海里面都有一个相同的常识,再加上 widely available这个条件,2个联合,让这个manufacturers敢这么嚣张的argue. 小布什对他argue买不买账,也是基于他现在的说法A,和他以前的常识B, 至于manufacturer今后怎么会做,会怎么卖,都不会对他当下所持的argument valid不valid有任何影响

他现在是夸海口了还是怎么着,以后是准备"available solely to top development officials in S. " 呢? 还是 " available NOT solely to top development officials in S. "呢? 那都是以后的事情. 和他现在敢不敢说大话,说出来谁信无关.,与小布什当下怎么评判他的argument无关.  起码他现在这个argue谁也不能说的不对,谁也不敢说他扯蛋. 那必然,大家对telecommunication equipment的效力都是认可的. 那么这种认可度,应该就是assumption!

就像我说的,我说大米麻油能征服暴政,你说你不信,假若我保证:我能让他们人人都用上大米麻油,你会觉,so what?你脑子有毛病!  然后我像(B)选项一样说: 我真的能保证,我一定能保证! 你一定会更无语...
但是假若在另外某个星系的人的常识是大米麻油是非常有杀伤力的东西,即(D)选项内容,那他们一定觉得我说的对,只要人人能用上效果一定不同凡响,绝对不是在扯蛋. 至于以后发生什么,我能不能说话算话和我现在这个argument无关

选b的唯一的可能性是: 如果题目问的是,基于现在给定条件A=>C,以后必须怎么样? 那我肯定选B,"保证能完成A"--也就是ls说的

something which must happen first or 2. (from the above) would be not true.

不知道说清楚了没有,欢迎拍砖

powers

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

it's not necessarily to be the most effective ones, or the only way, the passage didn't mention that, so it's irrelevant.  it works as long as it 's effective, ( See, effectiveness plays such a critical role here.)  just as I can have either 2 bowls of rice or 2 slices of pizza to get full. me and my stomach mutually agree with that.

littlexian

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

it's not necessarily to be the most effective ones, or the only way, the passage didn't mention that, so it's irrelevant.  it works as long as it 's effective, ( See, effectiveness plays such a critical role here.)  just as I can have either 2 bowls of rice or 2 slices of pizza to get full. me and my stomach mutually agree with that.

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

But choice D mentions it. Choice D is more likely to strengthen the argument, rather than to be an assumtion of it.

As you said, "it works as long as it 's effective". Therefore, how effective is not an issue here. The issue is assumtion=  what did the companies think before they had the conlcusion- those products will really help the people over there when widely available.-?????
The must think that "those people in country S will get their product", which has the same meaning as choice B.

littlexian

It has nothing to do with "保证", the companies did not use the assumption to convince somebody. They had the assumption first, then they got their conclusion.

powers

a=>b a是b的前提,有a才有b,a保证b,

powers

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

it's not necessarily to be the most effective ones, or the only way, the passage didn't mention that, so it's irrelevant.  it works as long as it 's effective, ( See, effectiveness plays such a critical role here.)  just as I can have either 2 bowls of rice or 2 slices of pizza to get full. me and my stomach mutually agree with that.

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

But choice D mentions it. Choice D is more likely to strengthen the argument, rather than to be an assumtion of it.

As you said, "it works as long as it 's effective". Therefore, how effective is not an issue here. The issue is assumtion=  what did the companies think before they had the conlcusion- those products will really help the people over there when widely available.-?????
The must think that "those people in country S will get their product", which has the same meaning as choice B.

-- by 会员 littlexian (2011/4/2 16:45:21)

that's not what i meant.  

you said D is strengthen the argument, I agree. All assumptions strength the argument by explaining whatever the reason behind it. Don't you agree?

How about B then? It doesn't even strengthen the argument directly, rather only strengthens the premise of the argument: In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country"  the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S",  and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective, if not the most effective one.

The way to solve "assumption type question "is by filling the gap, building a connection, not by generating anther premise of a premise or concluding the conclusion.   in this case the gap here is clearly the "effectiveness" , but what degree of the effectiveness, high or low or medium we don't care. you can argue tanks or nuclear bombs are more effective but I'd say brain-wash, that was what I meant by "irrelevant"

sdcar2010

Use negation method since this is a necessary assumption question.

If you negate B, you have: The telecommunication equipment that would be imported into S, if the exemption were to be granted, would be available solely to top development officials in S. If so, when the exemption is granted, ordinary people won't get access to cell phones. The country would still be repressive. Thus, the whole argument falls apart. B is the correct answer.

littlexian

However, they may not be the most effective ones, since we do not know what other banned exports are, what if they are guns, or tanks?

it's not necessarily to be the most effective ones, or the only way, the passage didn't mention that, so it's irrelevant.  it works as long as it 's effective, ( See, effectiveness plays such a critical role here.)  just as I can have either 2 bowls of rice or 2 slices of pizza to get full. me and my stomach mutually agree with that.

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 16:15:27)

But choice D mentions it. Choice D is more likely to strengthen the argument, rather than to be an assumtion of it.

As you said, "it works as long as it 's effective". Therefore, how effective is not an issue here. The issue is assumtion=  what did the companies think before they had the conlcusion- those products will really help the people over there when widely available.-?????
The must think that "those people in country S will get their product", which has the same meaning as choice B.

-- by 会员 littlexian (2011/4/2 16:45:21)

that's not what i meant.  

you said D is strengthen the argument, I agree. All assumptions strength the argument by explaining whatever the reason behind it. Don't you agree?

How about B then? It doesn't even strengthen the argument directly, rather only strengthens the premise of the argument: In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country"  the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S",  and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective, if not the most effective one.

The way to solve "assumption type question "is by filling the gap, building a connection, not by generating anther premise of a premise or concluding the conclusion.   in this case the gap here is clearly the "effectiveness" , but what degree of the effectiveness, high or low or medium we don't care. you can argue tanks or nuclear bombs are more effective but I'd say brain-wash, that was what I meant by "irrelevant"

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/2 20:00:37)

Well, how assumption works is that it links the premise and conlcusion. Just as you say "filling the gap", also just as NN sdcar2010 say without assumption"whole argument falls apart". An assumption does not strengthen anything, it makes the whole argument work. I wish I could point out the premise and conclusion here, and use the way NN sdcar2010 did to show how it works, by putting the sentences "in the gap". But it really is not my type to do CR, I always get confused by which is premise and which is conclusion, ha....T_T Hope any NN can help me to do it. I appreciate it!

Let's clear it out. You think the gap here is "effectiveness". And you do not care "what degree the effectiveness is", so it makes choice D out directly, because the point D focuses on is "the degree of effectiveness". Please pointing out if there is anything wrong at this part.

"In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country"  the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S",  and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective."
I dont get it here. Why is it still based on the equipment is effective?

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive"  

Once available -> works(effective)  Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue".  Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available?  That's why choice B is the assumption.