我不明白C选项为什么不可以削弱。因为如果在家里犯重大案件的可能性降低的话,那么他待在家里还是有效的呀。那么就可以削弱上述结论了呀。想半天想不通。求大神指点。
77. Citizens of Parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Which of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument? (A) Similar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening. (B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism. (C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home. (D) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon. (E) The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons. 情景:未成年人犯罪是很可怕的。因此,Parktown政府想了各种方法让青少年们在晚上呆在家里。但是,由于大部分的犯罪是在下午发生的,所以就算青少年们晚上呆在家里也是没有用的。 推理:推理文段中有提到过一个方案,并没有让我们评估这个方案好坏,而是让我们削弱这个方案所基于的推理。推理文段基于的推理是:因为大部分的犯罪在下午发生,所以让青少年在晚上呆在家里没用。推理文段的前提和结论描述的事件不同,在逻辑时间上,由于前提描述的事件先发生于结论描述的事件,是一个推测型推理,所以推理方式为:因果推理。本题为因果推理。 顺序的因果逻辑:因为大部分的犯罪在下午发生,所以让青少年在晚上呆在家里没用
(因)前提:大部分的犯罪在下午发生
(果)结论:让青少年在晚上呆在家里没用 答案选项需要反驳推理文段中的结论。 选项分析: (A) 其他地方用同样的防止青少年晚上外出的方法都无法令晚上外出的青少年数量减少。本选项不能反驳结论。 (B) Correct. 大部分青少年在下午时间犯的罪都是一些诸如小偷小摸和后果不严重破坏公务等罪。如果下午时间都是小偷小摸,而晚上的时间都是严重犯罪的话,那么,让青少年晚上呆在家里就是有意义的,至少可以减少严重犯罪的可能。 (C) 青少年在家中比不在家中有更低的可能性严重犯罪。本选项和结论无关。 (D) 任何在晚上对于巡警的需求的降低并不表明在下午可以加强巡逻。本选项不能反驳结论。 (E) Parktown的学校在周末组织了很多直到下午6点的课外项目。这个选项是试图反驳前提,也就是3点到6点,学校一般都可以组织活动。请记住,如果想靠反驳前提而削弱文段,必须明确的直接反驳,而不是“削弱”前提。
|