OG17第646题 boldfaced 类型题目讨论

杀鸡啦

麻烦大家和我一起瞅一眼这道题~这题我按照分类（结论、前提、其他）来进行分类之后，认为第一个黑体部分属于其他类（算是个背景现象）文中第二句（the reason that。。。）也属于其他类。紧接着说到“overoptimistic”，这个我认为是结论，最后划黑部分是前提(premise)，而最后题目的答案里面说，第一个黑体是对于一个结论的支持，第二个不是结论。。为什么会是这样呢。。

lisiberry

LZ，因为看小图不好解释，我先贴一个，然后再解释哈。<引用>
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles.

A) The first describe evidence that has been takes as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
B) The first describe evidence that has been takes as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
C) The first provides  evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides  evidence in support of  the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.


OA：A

lisiberry

一贴发现2位前辈已经解释得很清楚了，就直接把解释也贴过来了。偷懒一下。

http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1218844-1-1.html《引用fromAlzn》
每天限答两题，恭喜中奖。

这段话的conclusion到底是什么？
Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

我第一次做这题也做错了，当时也不明白。现在想通了。A的确是答案。(-->可见本题是一道非常好的题，毕竟Alzn很少会有做错的题。其实我也是先选了D)
A比D好在A说第二句是the second gives a reason for questioning that support，question that support就是结论句Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic。而第二句正是支持结论句的，从since...就可以看出来。

而D说的是the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.也就是等于说第二句是对于果因推理给出了“他因”。问题是这是第二句的本意吗？我们要清楚，第二句的目的只是为了支持Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic，而不是为了给出“果”的“真正原因”。给出“他因”可以是支持结论的一种表达，但不是唯一表达方式。只要我给出的support可以支持Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic就可以了。也就是只要可以削弱
top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false就可以了。那么我们可以通过果因推理的任何一种CQ来实现：
1. 找他因
2. 果非因（给出一个时间或者空间上的反例，证明果发生，但是因没有发生）
3. 因果倒置
以上任何一种CQ但可以达到削弱 top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false。你凭什么断定第二句一定是“他因”？

综上，A比D更好。
----------------------------------------------
《引用，fromDeliciaAn》

关于这道题目提供一点自己的浅见。
楼主注意A选项说的很隐蔽：supporting a conclusion。而不是supporting a main conclusion.这是不一样的。（点头同意ing）

你说的那个Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic是main conclusion,当然也是个a conclusion.

原文：They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false.这里是个a conclusion： those worrisome rumors must be false. 但不是main conclusion.
所以第一部分可以作为支持a conclusion的evidence.

而D选项，在OG里，也没有直接质疑说第一部分的问题，所以我觉得第一部分在D选项中的表述也是正确的即：The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain
关键要看第二部分：
A中的第2部分：the second gives a reason for questioning that support
D中的第2部分：the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish


Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company’s health.
第二部分像og说的，since后面的内容不是自己给出了个explaination，如果是解释那么就不会用“might well be",因为这里还说了the argument seeks to establish,那么说的话就应该是确定性的“should”“must”什么的，这里用的是“might”，只是给出了个推测的预期，并不是整个explanation that the argumernt seeks to establish,而是给出了个"such reasoing might well be overoptimistic"整个推测的解释。

杀鸡啦

lisiberry 发表于 2017-3-16 20:15
一贴发现2位前辈已经解释得很清楚了，就直接把解释也贴过来了。偷懒一下。

http://forum.chasedream.com ...

层主好人嘤嘤嘤！看了你的解释瞬间明白自己死在哪里了。。。我也是把第一个看成了support main conclusion， 另外第二个的话我原来一直把question the support中的support误认为是那个main conclusion了。。实际上他指的是第一个boldface

杀鸡啦

lisiberry 发表于 2017-3-16 20:15
一贴发现2位前辈已经解释得很清楚了，就直接把解释也贴过来了。偷懒一下。

http://forum.chasedream.com ...

不过我还有一个问题哎。。如果这样来看的话这个argument的结构是应该怎么分呢？我好像找不到premise了，但是曼哈顿教材里面提到说每个argument一定有一个premise的说。。

lisiberry

杀鸡啦 发表于 2017-3-17 10:09
不过我还有一个问题哎。。如果这样来看的话这个argument的结构是应该怎么分呢？我好像找不到premise了， ...

http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-19296-1-1.html

强调：
1） argument, principle和premise是要绝对清楚区分的。一个题干中的每个内容属于，且只能属于这三种成分中的一个。
2） 题干一定有argument, 但不一定有principle和premise。

杀鸡啦

lisiberry 发表于 2017-3-17 13:30
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-19296-1-1.html

强调：

哦哦好的谢谢！