OG题求解

疏离无罪

Roland:The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon

:But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed.So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon

's argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
第二个人的反驳看了半天没看懂什么意思
哪位NN解释下

sdcar2010

Roland hints that the unemployment rate is high since 90% people know someone is unemployed.

Sharon disagrees and claims it is normal for 90% people to know someone who is umemployed at a normal umemployment of 5%.

For necessary assumption questions, just use negation and see if that would cause the arugment to cumble.  If so, that answer choice is correct.  You do not need to worry why other choices are not assumptions other than that these wrong choices have no impact on the argument.

Let's negate B.
Unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population. If this is true, then certain area will have extremely high unemployment rate (let's say 10.5%) while other areas will have extremely low unemployment rate (let's say it is 0.5%). The national average for unemployment is still 5%. Then in the area with low unemployment, every 200 people will have one unemployed.  Then if one knows 50 people, it is likely that none of these 50 people are unemployed. Sharon's argument falls apart.

疏离无罪

Roland hints that the unemployment rate is high since 90% people know someone is unemployed.

Sharon disagrees and claims it is normal for 90% people to know someone who is umemployed at a normal umemployment of 5%.

For necessary assumption questions, just use negation and see if that would cause the arugment to cumble.  If so, that answer choice is correct.  You do not need to worry why other choices are not assumptions other than that these wrong choices have no impact on the argument.

Let's negate B.
Unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population. If this is true, then certain area will have extremely high unemployment rate (let's say 10.5%) while other areas will have extremely low unemployment rate (let's say it is 0.5%). The national average for unemployment is still 5%. Then in the area with low unemployment, every 200 people will have one unemployed.  Then if one knows 50 people, it is likely that none of these 50 people are unemployed. Sharon's argument falls apart.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/28 20:06:34)

首先谢谢NN
NN的意思是ASSUMPTION题可以否定掉他的意思 （加上NOT或去掉）如果他能够weaken原文的意思的话就是对的
我理解的对吗
是这个意思吗

sdcar2010

Close.

Not "weaken", but "refute."

疏离无罪

谢谢NN

Feelalive

谢谢Sdcar NN