OG-81 觉得另一个答案也对（已查过讨论帖，没人提过）

rosmarine

81.The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakened if it were true that

(A) in 1987 smugglers of illegal drugs, as a group, had significantly more funds at their disposal than did the country’s customs agents

(B) domestic production of illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987

(C) the author’s statements were made in order to embarrass the officials responsible for the drug-control program

(D) in 1987 illegal drugs entered the country by a different set of routes than they did in 1986

(E) the country’s citizens spent substantially more money on illegal drugs in 1987 than they did in 1986.

答案是B，我没有疑问。只是觉得C好像更正确一点。OG说C无关（The author’s intention (choice C) is irrelevant to whether the reasoning the statements express is cogent. ），可是，作者如果存心要建立舆论让政府难堪，他发表的言论肯定夸大偏颇不足为信，七宗罪中有一宗不就是说这个么，AA题库中就有类似的案例。那么，C说作者要为难政府，这是true的，即暗示作者不可信，那不是从根子上否定了原文吗？那不是most seriouly weaken吗？

实在想不通，翻遍了讨论帖也没有人说到这一点。还是请大家一起来讨论一下吧，多谢了！

rosmarine

jjll

论证和作者的态度无关啊。

作者态度好，论证可能是错的；作者态度不好，论证也可能是正确的。

关键要从逻辑的角度解决问题啊。

lawyer_1

问题要WEAKEN的是原文的ARGUMENT， 即原文的推理。所以作者的态度和目的无关。其实逻辑题作者的态度多数不是答案。

rosmarine

唔，那为什么AA里面就那么看重作者的态度呢？我有时候真觉得GMAT没有统一标准，情况太复杂了，都要具体问题具体分析，OG说是啥就是啥，让人无所适从。

P.S.lawyer_1回俺的帖好荣幸！我现在就在看你分类版的OG逻辑。

jjll

lawyer还在啊。幸会！

rosmarine，CR和你说的AA里的态度其实是一样的，只是站的角度不同。

原则：不能通过攻击作者的态度来攻击作者的观点。

C正犯了这个错误，所以不能weaken，对不对？

如果在AA里，有人用C这个理由，你是不是一眼就能看出来了？

yukovan

美国人倾向于就事论事吧,不像中国人那么迂回

sandyno0425

１

cccccc0

up