|
发现这道的逻辑还没有想明白，OG的解释看得也是朦朦胧胧，对CD上关于这道题的讨论还不能完全苟同。
这道题用有关无关很容易得出结论，因为只有B和Sharon的推论有关。但是我想知道B的逻辑到底是怎么样子的。大家帮忙看看加亮的OG解释部分，或者和我分享自己的想法也可以哦
Questions 138-139 are based on the following.
Roland:
The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon:
But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
139. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
139.
Sharon’s argument assumes that people are generally similar in how likely they are to have among their acquaintances people who are unemployed. Since heavy concentrations of unemployment in geographically isolated segments of the population would produce great differences in this respect, Sharon’s argument assumes few, if any, such concentrations. Choice B is therefore the best answer.
If normal levels of unemployment were exceeded relatively frequently, and if Roland’s figure of 90 percent were an exaggeration, Sharon’s argument would be unaffected, so choices A and D are incorrect. At exceptionally low levels of unemployment, Sharon’s argument suggests that choice C is likely to be false, so C is not assumed. The fear of losing one’s job is not part of Sharon’s argument, so choice E is incorrect.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-10-7 20:18:00
楼主
