gwd 4-14

maimai2009

以下是引用shzzhengfan在2006-5-16 19:32:00的发言：

Q14:

Guidebook writer:  I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.  Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

1. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
2. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
3. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
4. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
5. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

D：质量好的房子保存的时间长

即现在保存下来的1930年前的房子都是1930年前质量最好的房子，那么拿1930年前质量最好的一批房子和1930年后的普通房子相比得出1930年前的房子整体好是不科学的，反对前提。

我第一次碰见通过反对前提削弱的题 !

 

原句说better the quality of original carpentry in a building， 这里的carpentry指的是木工还是木材，看到好多人说质量好的房子。。。，我不明白这个质量好到底说什么质量好？如果是木材质量好那是他因消弱，如果是木工，那不是和原文说的一样的？

winrain

up

OTSUKAAINAI

原文主要围绕 木工的“努不努力” 和 酒店的质量好不好 谈

A说只说酒店不好 B就更不靠谱了 C说的是材料问题对象不对 D和E都说到了相应的对象，相比而言，D选项是向前推，也就是给出了旧酒店和新酒店可比的前提——旧酒店还存在，而E选项说工作时间和CARE\SKILL还是有出入的，相比D更沾边。

xzbest

D就是说，1930年以前的木工也是有好有坏，但是能留到今天的都是当初的好的木工，不好的都disuse或demolish了，所以不能以现在留下来的这些1930年以前的直接与1930年以后的做比较，削弱了原文的逻辑。

从别的地方搬来的，觉得很有理

johnnytan131

如此说的话，1930以后保留下来的，也应该都是质量好的房子，但是也比不过之前的，还是说明了作者的观点阿。。。这题的逻辑阿。。。