求助：遇到有点绕的逻辑题怎么做？

Elihu2

感觉遇到逻辑比较复杂，情景又不是很了解的逻辑题时就会很懵逼
如果逻辑简单：A-->B -->C 即使不是很懂也能推测出； 如果逻辑不简单能get到meaning也会懂。可逻辑复杂又情景不熟的题根本无法入手。

In countries where automobile insuranceincludes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents,reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are incountries where whiplash is not covered. Presently, no objective test forwhiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuriescannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant theconclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious.Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensationfor whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuriesthat they actually have suffered.

这种题感觉就是很难懂~

ron给出了 flow diagram 的方法，


听着Ron 说，也似懂非懂。。

大家有什么好方法吗？

ai559031

理解句子作用即可：
第一句話是在闡述一個現象/一件事,很顯然不會是一個claim--> 刪AB
第二句話則是一個觀點(claim/argument),很顯然不是evidence-->刪E

最後剩C.D
先回去看文章轉折地方：Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by...
稍微看一下語意大概是說從第一句話並不代表XX事情/不足以下xx結論
然後再回去看一下C.D選項
感覺Ｄ比較符合前後的關係
選D

如果不放心可以再check C: 第一句話感覺並沒有用來支持什麼結論,所以是錯的

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.

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

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.

(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.

═☆梦☆依旧

Boldface是最简单的，只需要看两个内容：
文字性质（事实还是结论）
论证方向（看两个黑体字之间有无导致语意反向的逻辑词）
判断好这两个立马可以得出答案

dirklaobadao

═☆梦☆依旧 发表于 2017-9-5 09:34
Boldface是最简单的，只需要看两个内容：
文字性质（事实还是结论）
论证方向（看两个黑体字之间有无导致语 ...

高端啊

Elihu2

═☆梦☆依旧 发表于 2017-9-5 09:34
Boldface是最简单的，只需要看两个内容：
文字性质（事实还是结论）
论证方向（看两个黑体字之间有无导致语 ...

好总结啊~
再求教一下大神：像这种 development & judgment 如何判断？ 只是看句意很浪费时间。
(D) The first is a development thatthe argument seeks to explain; the second is a prediction the argument makes insupport of the explanation it offers.

(E) The first presents adevelopment whose likely outcome is at issue in the argument; the second is ajudgment the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.

Elihu2

ai559031 发表于 2017-9-4 13:48
理解句子作用即可：
第一句話是在闡述一個現象/一件事,很顯然不會是一個claim--> 刪AB
第二句話則是一個觀 ...

真好，现在又看了一遍，感觉豁然开朗~           

GPSGWJ

═☆梦☆依旧 发表于 2017-9-5 09:34
Boldface是最简单的，只需要看两个内容：
文字性质（事实还是结论）
论证方向（看两个黑体字之间有无导致语 ...

同意！               

═☆梦☆依旧

Elihu2 发表于 2017-9-7 13:57
好总结啊~
再求教一下大神：像这种 development & judgment 如何判断？ 只是看句意很浪费时间。
(D) The  ...

只要思考下它是否是客观存在的东西就行。development无法被你的主观意识左右，所以是事实。judgement就不用说了，都说了是判断了那当然是观点了。

Elihu2

The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?

A：No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.

B：Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.

C：There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.

D：An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.

E：Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products—example, in the computer and electronics industries—which patent protection is often very ineffective.

這題怎麼都不懂，大神幫忙啊

RichardVeritas

Elihu2 发表于 2017-10-18 19:16
The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy develop ...

B

两个事物
1. pharmaceutical industry，heavy development costs ，current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended
2. other industries，new-product development continues despite high development costs
反驳2，支持1，我们看1/2区别gap，紧扣是否会影响成本回收。不同行业，可以有太多区别。
B说药专利下来后还要等10年才能销售卖钱。这就是和其它行业不同的一个地方，而且直接影响20年期限和成本回收。

其它也很好排除。