ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4478|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[讨论][求助]按照Lawyer的方法解题后的疑问(假设篇)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-4-16 21:47:00 | 只看该作者

[讨论][求助]按照Lawyer的方法解题后的疑问(假设篇)

今天开始用Lawyer的实战解题思路作题,发觉脑筋一下子转不过来。下面把我的记录贴出来,请牛牛们帮忙看一看分析问题所在,怎样才是正确有效的解题方法。如果有人也碰巧遇到了同样的问题,也一起讨论阿!(以下都是OG的题目)


这是Lawyer的假设题作题方法:


看原文:找出结论和推出该结论的前提。特别注意结论的特殊性和具体性。 对于充分必要的,列出推理链。


找答案:答案分两类型:SUPPORT(填补推理上的概念GAP),DEFENDER(排除WEAKEN结论的可能性,即排除他因)。读原文,推理中有概念GAP(特别是答案出现新元素),则答案填补这个GAP(通常新元素必出现),否则找他因,排除推理中的WEAKNESS。最后用TEST检验或排除易混的答案。对于后一类用有关无关有时比较好,用结论的具体性和特殊性去分有关无关,排出剩下的用TEST


DENIAL TEST将选项取非,原文结论不成立,则为正确选项。


几种特殊类型:


因果型结论:ASSUMPTION的方法包括:A。不是其他原因或可能导致该结果。B。结合因果:或有因有果或无果无因。C。因果没颠倒。D显示因果关系的资料是准确。


条件型结论:结论带条件(即为充分必要)。ASSUMPTION的方法排除充分条件出现,必要条件不出现的情况。或充分条件一定能推出必要条件,或排除充分条件推不出必要条件的可能


原文是类比:ASSUMPTION方式为两者本质不是不同


调查:肯定有效性(被调查的对象有代表性等)


8. To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.


The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?


A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.


B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.


C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.


D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.(d)


E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.


政府不让高级官员离职三年内作lobbyist导致了高级官员着三年内无以为生


所以判断,该题为前提结论结构。


答案:高级官员离职后只能做Lobbyist


ABCE 选项Og用的是假设取非的方法排除的。


那么这个答案到底是填补推理上的概念GAP还是排除WEAKEN结论的可能性呢?自己觉得好像和Gap这一说接近一点,但是答案中未出现新元素。这和架桥的假设方法有什么区别呢?


在这里还有几个概念相确认一下,Lawyer所说的结论因果型条件型等等是指整篇文章的结构还是只是结论部分本身有这样的逻辑关系?(看了Lawyer的方法有点被一些概念冲晕了)



21.


When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear-arms testing increased, people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.



The argument above assumes that



A. the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years.


B. most people supported the development of nuclear arms


C. people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done


D. the people who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations


E. there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases


n-a testing 多,人们消费增加(前提)


因为感觉到来自nuclear catastrophe的威胁所以人们消费增加(结论)


这应该是因果型结论吧?


答案c:n-a testing的数目决定人们对危险的知觉。


以前我肯定说这是架桥梁。但是根据lawyer的因果型结论分析应该是找排除他因的答案。这里我看不出哪里是他因。还是我对Lawyer的解题方法理解有偏差?


36.


If the airspace around centrally located airports were restricted to commercial airliners and only those private planes equipped with radar, most of the private-plane traffic would be forced to sue outlying airfields. Such a reduction in the amount of private-plane traffic would reduce the risk of midair collision around the centrally located airports.



The conclusion draw in the first sentence depends on which of the following assumptions?



A. Outlying airfields would be as convenient as centrally located airports for most pilots of private planes.


B. Most outlying airfields are not equipped to handle commercial-airline traffic.


C. Most private planes that use centrally located airports are not equipped with radar.


D. Commercial airliners are at greater risk of becoming involved in midair collisions than are private planes.


E. A reduction in the risk of midair collision would eventually lead to increases in commercial-airline traffic.



中心地带的机场只供装了雷达的私家机使用,那么私家机只能永远离中心的机场。


这个应该是条件型结论吧?


答案C:用中心地带的私家机大多未装雷达


这里若是私家机都装了雷达那么他们就不用离开中心机场了。是不是排除了有充分条件但是推不出必要条件的情况?


48.


A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.



The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?



A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.


B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.


C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.


D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.


E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.


Og的解释很清楚:The researcher concludes from the association of low immune-system activity with low mental-health sores that, in effect, immune system activity can inhibit mental illness. If, contrary to D, mental illness can depress immune-system activity, the association mentioned does not support the researcher’s conclusion.这里前提结论型文章,但我觉得结论是第二句,而根据OG的解释结合解题方法,似乎符合因果型结论中的因果没颠倒的答案。


我知道我搞混了很多概念,也有点想得太复杂了,但很想搞清楚具体如何使用前人的经验,能掌握有效找到答案的方法。


望讨论!在此先谢过了。问了一些有些傻傻的问题大家可千万别见怪阿。。。


谢谢!!!




沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2006-4-17 12:35:00 | 只看该作者

怎么没人讨论呀,5555


失败啊

板凳
发表于 2006-4-17 15:51:00 | 只看该作者

8. To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.>>


>>The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?>>


A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.>>


B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.>>


C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.


D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.(d)


E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years



这题我是排除的


A:肯定不对.


B:lobbyists是给政府高级官员做的,不是就不能做了?没提,政府高级官员---》lobbiyist,但是翻过不成立


C:还是从lobbyists翻过来推,所以还是不对


E:意思曲解了,只能当三年lobbiyist,文章实说,三年内不许当。


只有D对,其实楼主的方法很对啊:政府不让高级官员离职三年内作lobbyist导致了高级官员着三年内无以为生 ”说明高官只能干这个,所以法律一禁止就没饭吃了,然后一选就选了D


地板
发表于 2006-4-17 15:54:00 | 只看该作者

Lawyer的方法


没有看过,只是觉的只要适合自己的方法就是最好的


你只要能快速准确的解题,就算步骤烦杂,只要你一路很顺的话,时间上来得及,对你来说就是好方法。


方法是因人而异的。


不过“Lawyer的方法”还是值得好好研究的。估计做第二遍的时候反过来看会比较有感觉。

5#
发表于 2006-4-17 16:18:00 | 只看该作者

21:


N-A的试验少,人们省钱,


N-A的试验多,人们花钱


现在是在核灾难的威胁下,人们决定省钱的愿望下降了,即然马开始药花钱了,防止核灾难。


是不是告诉我们之前的花钱多试验多的原因是:多花钱,多试验来放防止核灾难。即试验多和花钱多之间的关系是人们对核灾难的威胁的认识?



这题我也不是很懂,忘NN解一二。


我的第一反映是:看到了核灾难的危险,决定少试验,一看conclusion,居然准备花钱,傻了


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-17 16:42:40编辑过]
6#
发表于 2006-4-17 16:30:00 | 只看该作者

36题


要证明的是,小飞机少了,事故就少了的原因。可见事故都是小飞机造成的,才能解释其量的减少,才减少了事故的发生。所以只要找小飞机的不是就ok了


AB是讲机场。不对


D实说商业飞机本身,不能解释


E是推论,


只有C是讲小飞机的,虽然绝大部分是在outlying fields 降落,还是有小部分在中心机场起降,只有这个有可能在成事故,因为商业飞机没雷达,相撞只能是在哪里其起降的小飞机也没雷达

7#
发表于 2006-4-17 16:41:00 | 只看该作者

48.


im 正常或者高,Mental高


im 低,mental低


得出结论,im 决定mental和 phy


A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.----错,normal和high是一样的。


B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.---没有提到>>


C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.---反了,是im决定其他两个


D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.--对,Mental或者phy不决定immune-system >>


E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.---无关。


8#
发表于 2006-4-17 20:24:00 | 只看该作者

非常赞同GONGHAO的说法,任何人的办法只能是借鉴,形成自己的办法才是关键,因为考试时做题靠的是感觉,即直接反映,只有自己的办法才能做到这点。加上我贴那篇文章目的只是在办法上给大家一点启发,期待能让大家形成自己办法的过程中有所帮助。所以比较抽象。如果要讲细,需要的篇幅实在大。因为涉及如何理解。


8。排除weaken的结论性。既然是“结论”什么型,当然是指结论。


21. 填补GAP。新概念为:The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe


36. 不是条件型结论。条件型结论的条件中必须有If then之类的指示词


48.因果颠倒


该贴有些问题也许有些代表性,如果能连接到那篇文章,也许会帮更多的人解决同样的疑惑。


9#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-4-17 20:47:00 | 只看该作者

谢谢gonghao,lawyer_1。最近做逻辑正确率有所下降(刚做OG时超级敏锐,后来做了FF就觉得不大行,再做XDF觉得也没之前那种初出牛犊不怕虎的气魄了)就想着是不是自己的方法错了。拜读Lawyer的文章后,奉为经典,想就逻辑思路方面作些调整。但是,可能理解上有些偏差想看看究竟牛人是怎么操作的(那篇文章有好多概念需要细细品位并通过题目加以支撑,所以想要是有那么一篇根据Lawyer解题方法各种类型距离的贴就好了)。呵呵。


现在把Lawyer的文章链接贴上,http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=74525&replyID=&skin=1


希望对大家有帮助。


另外想问一下lawyer需要每篇道题目都针对您说的方法一一分析吗?还是应该先用自己的方法,碰到一些特殊类型或混淆选项在仔细分析?


还有就是文章中关于假设提到的:


几种特殊类型: >>


因果型结论:ASSUMPTION的方法包括:A。不是其他原因或可能导致该结果。B。结合因果:或有因有果或无果无因。C。因果没颠倒。D显示因果关系的资料是准确。 >>


条件型结论:结论带条件(即为充分必要)。ASSUMPTION的方法排除充分条件出现,必要条件不出现的情况。或充分条件一定能推出必要条件,或排除充分条件推不出必要条件的可能 >>


原文是类比:ASSUMPTION方式为两者本质不是不同 >>


调查:肯定有效性(被调查的对象有代表性等)


未必每篇文章都是这归属于这些类型的八,只是一些特殊类型的结论需要用到。一般的文章应该事先抽象出简洁的逻辑关系,看有没有GAP,若有就架桥或者说就是弥补GAP;若没有GAP就应该用他因法排除推理中的WEAKNESS。最后若是还出不来答案,再用选项取非的方法排除混淆答案?


thanks


10#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-4-17 21:06:00 | 只看该作者

对上面几道题进行总结,望指正!


8  文章没有GAP,找排除WEAKNESS的选项


21. 文章中有GAP,新元素为:The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe,找填补GAP的答案。


36. 虽然文章有IF。。。结构,但是条件型结论(结论本身)有If then之类的指示词。此题应找排除weakness的答案。


48. 排除因果颠倒的情况


对于48, 有些疑问,觉得与其说是因果颠倒,或许理解成排除与原文推力方向相反的情况。不知道这样理解对不对? 因为似乎从结论看不出因果型。


继续讨论。谢谢


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-17 21:05:53编辑过]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-6-1 02:15
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部