求助： OG逻辑106题...ORZ...

橙子会飞

求助： OG106.Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.【Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.】
看到proportion，要注意比例问题

(B) Children who areallergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to haveallergies to other substances.正确 因为由于这种原因导致的过敏孩子数量，没有比因为其他原因过敏的孩子要多，符合比例问题的考虑。

(C) Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not morelikely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago. 但是因为其他原因导致的过敏就医数也上升了 分子上升了，分母也上升了，因此不是没有解决文中的gap吗？

到底题目应该怎么看，我总感觉做逻辑的时候，最重要的就是限定词的提示了。不管看了多少遍，题目总引导我选B，大神NN快粗线吧，引导引导我吧，到底怎么看题哇？ 跪谢！！！！！

橙子会飞

第一次发帖提问，自己顶哈。

橙子会飞

啊，忘记说了，正确答案选C的

alzn2765

统计枚举题

直接举例说明：

10年前：100个娃，10个送去护士小姐，10% allergic reactions to those chemicals

现在：还是100个娃，20个送去护士小姐，20% allergic reactions to those chemicals

结论：要么是娃们比10年前变得敏感了，那么是娃们比10年前更多的暴露在有害化学物质之下。

这里有一个Assumption：送去护士小姐那里的娃就是allergic reactions to those chemicals的娃的总数，是一个“完美”的样本。

可如果 送去护士小姐那里的娃 并不代表 allergic reactions to those chemicals的娃的总数 呢？也就是样本是没有代表性的呢？

10年前：100个娃，100个都allergic reactions to those chemicals，但家里穷啊！家长懒啊！只有10个送去护士小姐，10% 送去护士小姐那里，但是100%都allergic reactions to those chemicals。

现在：还是100个娃，只有20个allergic reactions to those chemicals，且20个都送去护士小姐，20% allergic reactions to those chemicals

结论：要么是娃们比10年前变得敏感了，那么是娃们比10年前更多的暴露在有害化学物质之下 无法成立。

统计枚举的本质就是质疑假设。

橙子会飞

alzn2765 发表于 2015-9-23 19:44
统计枚举题

直接举例说明：

哦，所以说这道题的重点在于样本代表性问题，而非我所说的比例问题喽。
assumption在于过去的100个中的10个并没有代表性，与现在100个中的20个相比，影响送至就医数的主观医院发生了变化，所以得出的结论就站不住脚了。

昨晚又看了一下关于B这个选项错误的OG解释
Only school-nurseisits for allergic reactions to the cleaners and pesticide is used in elementary schools are in question in the argument. Of course there could be school-nursevisits for allergic reactions to other things, but that issue does not arise in the argument.

感觉好像有点摸清思路了，to make sure,根据你的思路，我又自己分析了一遍：

P1:Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used inelementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in somechildren. (介绍背景：用commonly来引导reader造成过敏反映的是清洁剂)

P2：Elementary school nurses（in Renston）report that the proportion of school children sent to them（1） for treatment of allergic reactions to thosechemicals（2）（看有这许多限定修饰，暗示限定范围可能不是重点）has increased significantly over the past ten years.（逻辑链开始：调查显示--提示属于“统计枚举”题范畴，突破口在a.样本是否具有代表性b.样本数量是否足够）

-->Therefore, either Renston’sschoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, orthey are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

Which of thefollowing is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The number ofschool nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased overthe past ten years.

--文中的核心内容是由10年前的过敏就医数对比现今过敏就医数，而得出这种改变的原因，取非以下，就算护士的数量真的减少了，就医数（核心内容）也不会变。

(B) Children who areallergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to haveallergies to other substances.正确 比例问题-- Only school-nurseisits for allergic reactions to the cleaners and pesticide is used in elementary schools are in question in the argument. Of course therecould be school-nursevisits for allergic reactions to other things, but that issue does not arise in theargument.

这道题考的并不是限定范围问题—然而，好像GMAT逻辑题一般不会在核心词的限定修饰上出题，除了在1st family中must be true等类型中，错误选项设置上可能会有扩大修饰范围的情况，造成exaggerated answer。（待讨论...）

(C) Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not morelikely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

–Aha!讲到过去的样本其实是有问题的，即没有代表性,正中下怀！

(D) The chemicalsare not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartmentbuildings in Renston.--又是限定修饰问题，相比较于B选项，一眼排除原因在于，这种限定还是限定在非核心内容上，更是差到十万八千里了。

(E) Childrenattending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’spopulation now than they did ten years ago.--

取非，比例问题，与数量无关，就算适读儿童数增多，接触到这种过敏原的孩子也变多了。

个人见解，欢迎拍砖！！！

alzn2765

橙子会飞 发表于 2015-9-24 19:14
哦，所以说这道题的重点在于样本代表性问题，而非我所说的比例问题喽。
assumption在于过去的100个中的10 ...

如果是Assumption题，看到原文没有提到的新信息，可以直接确定为错误选项。

B中Children who areallergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances. 出现了原文没有的“无关比较”，可以直接排除，根本不用再考虑这个选项的逻辑。

橙子会飞

alzn2765 发表于 2015-9-24 19:43
如果是Assumption题，看到原文没有提到的新信息，可以直接确定为错误选项。

B中Children who areallergic ...

嗯，对的，
OG106.Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years.【Therefore, either Renston’s school children have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.】
文中讲到的过敏都没有提及到allergies to other substances这个新信息。

但是我还不是太理解你说的“如果是Assumption题，看到原文没有提到的新信息，可以直接确定为错误选项。”Manhattan里面有说，assumption题属于2nd family是允许新信息出现在错误选项中的。比如下一题：

og83

Many people suffer an allergic reaction tocertain sulfites, including those that are commonly added to wine aspreservatives. 【However,since there are several winemakers who add sulfites to none of the wines theyproduce, people (who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites) candrink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reactionto sulfites.】

Which of thefollowing is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(E) Sulfites are notnaturally present in the wines produced by these winemakers in amounts largeenough to produce an allergic reaction in someone who drinks these wines.最贴合premises关于S造成过敏。取非，造成结论不成立

（为什么又是过敏问题）文中没有提到自然形成的硫酸盐，但是他依旧是正确答案。啊啊，这厮为什么，偶的头要想破了。。。

都怪我太笨，我觉的我对你的话可能理解的不太到位，NN大人能多解释下么~~

alzn2765

橙子会飞 发表于 2015-9-24 20:27
嗯，对的，
OG106.Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or ...

我举一个跟这题一样的例子：

地沟油不干净，人吃了拉肚子，我家楼下有个烧烤摊，摊主肯定没用地沟油，所以我吃他家的烤串一定不会因为食品卫生问题而拉肚子。

你觉得我的结论成立吗？

在肉串上爬过去的小强说：因为我？
在肉串上爬过去的米奇说：因为我？
老板那上完厕所从来不洗的手说：因为我？
肉串上过期20年的孜然粉说：因为我？

为了让我的结论成立，我需要假设什么？

橙子会飞

alzn2765 发表于 2015-9-24 21:27
我举一个跟这题一样的例子：

地沟油不干净，人吃了拉肚子，我家楼下有个烧烤摊，摊主肯定没用地沟油，所 ...

P1：地沟油不干净，人吃了拉肚子（这是背景）
P2：我家楼下有个烧烤摊，摊主肯定没用地沟油
C：所以我吃他家的烤串一定不会因为食品卫生问题而拉肚子。
逻辑链：没用地沟油，就不会因为卫生问题拉肚子

---需要的假设应该是其他卫生问题都不会出现吧。
因为结论中已经提及卫生问题这个范畴，所以小强等等原因都不算新信息，应该是这样吧大神？

alzn2765

橙子会飞 发表于 2015-9-25 18:44
P1：地沟油不干净，人吃了拉肚子（这是背景）
P2：我家楼下有个烧烤摊，摊主肯定没用地沟油
C：所以我吃 ...

所以，如果选项是：

该地摊的卫生条件良好，没有鼠患会导致卫生隐患 或者 该地摊的卫生条件良好，没有蟑螂导致卫生隐患 或者 摊主有良好的个人卫生习惯（等于“摊主无不良的个人卫生习惯”） 或者 摊主一定没有采用其他劣质的食材

如果这些是正确选项，我是否引入了“新信息”？
注意我对新信息采取的是肯定态度还是否定态度？

如果说肯定“新信息”的存在叫“引入新信息”，那么否定“新信息”的存在也叫“引入新信息”吗？