请教两个逻辑

joice

T4:
D . Pre-tax price + tax = after-tax price
   
     Evidence:  

     re-tax price1 + tax = after-tax price1
     re-tax price2 + tax + .o8 = after-tax price2
  
     Conclusion: sales relate to after-tax price of  1 Cigar.

    The necessary assumption of this argument is: after-tax price 2 > after-tax price 1.

    This happen only when: pre-tax price 2 + .08 > pre-tax price 1

   So D is correct:  the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more   cents  lower than ---previous yr.

joice

T28:

The stimulus state two arguments from two groups of people: Certain politicians and experts.

The Q ask you to support the expert’s contention:
new tax policy would have little impact on B’s air-quality problem.



Most exerts believe that people will buy fewer automobiles. Since fewer new autos will available,  people'll continue to use automobiles that they own. These old autos become less fuel efficient and cause more air pollution.

So D. strengthen experts' point that new tax policy would have little impact on B's air-quality problem, or it may even worsen the situation.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-4 10:52:09编辑过]

joice

MM, 你咋看D的，好象你没写完D？
D我认为是：减少了车辆，等车用长久了，会造成更多环境污染。
所以支持了专家观点：如你说的，减少了车辆， 对污染的减少没什么影响。反而可能恶化环境。

继续讨论，谢谢。

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-4 10:10:36编辑过]

joice

E. The scrapping of automobiles cause insignificant amount of air pollution

E.我觉地是：
减少车俩 导致少量空气污染？所以不加强expert的观点。
insignificant amount, not insignificant impact.

继续讨论

joice

以下是引用joywzy在2003-11-4 15:32:00的发言：

可是我仍不理解E为何是无关.E说:汽车对空气的污染小.那么汽车总量的减少,对空气的污染也减少.咦,这不是反对了expert的观点了???

it is a support question, not weaken.

E  : The scrapping of automobiles cause insignificant amount of air pollution

means a result of an environmental improvement, which experts doesn't agree with.

你同意专家观点是：减少了车辆， 对污染的减少没什么影响。反而可能恶化环境。

so E doesn't support the expert’s contention，and the question ask you to support.

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-5 4:31:30编辑过]

joice

E 不能 support，但也不认为是无关。

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-6 0:03:35编辑过]

joice

以下是引用joywzy在2003-11-6 0:11:00的发言：
相关：要么支持，要么反对。

是这样的吗？

我咋觉得好绝对阿，因为选限是ETS加工过的，只能说是 可做candidate 之一， 比如 这题E, 挺好的反对candidate。但其它时候呢？有没有可能很好，但内容偏狭窄，所以也不能是反对？只是有点相关？


谢谢mm！也请牛牛 指导！

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-6 0:54:22编辑过]