之前看到某位大神分享的Helr逻辑笔记,其中有一道果因题是这样的:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of theoriginal carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels builtafterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically workedwith more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotelsbuilt subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer'sargument? 结论是因,前提是果。 (A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels isgenerally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in otherstructures, such as houses and stores. (介绍了一下“果”的情况,没有解释为什么有果。排除)
(B) Hotels built since 1930can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. (选项比较难,注意 can,这个选项不能解释前提产生的原因,因为 can 表示 30 年以后的酒店能承载更多的顾客,不代表单位面积顾客多。如果把 can 去掉,换成 have accommodated,就可以说明“果”了) (C) The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materialsavailable to carpenters working after 1930. (提到了 CQ1 说明结果问题,但是是否定一个说明结果。,也就是不存在这方面的问题。加强。)(D) The better the quality oforiginal carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished. (说明结果问题,削弱。)
(E) The average length ofapprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. (不涉及果,排除)
因果模式推理: 这种模式最为简单,也最为容易。原文的前提为因,结论为果。(与果因相反) CQ1:因果概括问题(原文的因和果没有联系或一因有多果) CQ2:干扰因素(原文的前提加上选项就不一定可以得出结果了。) [size=11.000000pt]
[size=11.000000pt]真的是想了很久也不太理解为什么D正确,不知道有没有人可以帮忙再详细解释一下,谢谢~!
|