ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: 祈晴坊主
打印 上一主题 下一主题

十月梦队逻辑讨论专贴,请NN多多支持!!

[精华] [复制链接]
31#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-9-24 15:31:00 | 只看该作者
9. Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who

(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan

(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected

(C) don not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected

(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics

(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

答案选D
我选C

文章说who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected‘
而who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan
而只有 truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected

其隐含就是说不支持tax plan的有机会被elected
但是如果不支持PLAN都没有机会的话
那么最终的结论不是推不出了吗
32#
发表于 2003-9-24 21:27:00 | 只看该作者
加为精华贴,便于大家讨论。
33#
发表于 2003-9-24 21:53:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用祈晴坊主在2003-9-24 14:14:00的发言:

还是不懂
我咋觉得这道题目讲的是major airlines 和regional airlines 的关系呢
when major airlines moved out,regional airlines moved in,
then there are more flights into and out of most small airports now that before the change in regulatory policy

他到底要讲什么呢

haha, mm, you went after the wrong guy:
Q: Which one of the following is assumption on which the consumer activist抯 argument depends?

forget about Industry representative, he is not handsome at all.
34#
发表于 2003-9-25 09:36:00 | 只看该作者
9. Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) don not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics
答案选D
我选C

文章说who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected‘
而who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan
而只有 truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected

其隐含就是说不支持tax plan的有机会被elected
但是如果不支持PLAN都没有机会的话
那么最终的结论不是推不出了吗
=====================================================
这种类型的推理错误叫做:False Dilema, 亦即人为地增加一个限制:所有情况只存在于两种情形,非此即彼。这种错误也称为:非法的 either ... or.

实际情况是,除了主观限定的两种情形外,还有其它的情形。而解题中把这种其它的情形随便找出一个出来,或直接说明这种情形的存在性(如此题),就是答案。本题中忽略了不支持税法也不懂经济的那帮人;因为他们不支持税法,所以也有可能当选。
35#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-9-25 11:17:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用joice在2003-9-24 21:53:00的发言:
haha, mm, you went after the wrong guy:
Q: Which one of the following is assumption on which the consumer activist抯 argument depends?

forget about Industry representative, he is not handsome at all.



hehe

got it

3x
36#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-9-25 11:22:00 | 只看该作者

考場上發的是鉛筆還是鋼筆

以下是引用dorbear在2003-9-25 9:36:00的发言:

这种类型的推理错误叫做:False Dilema, 亦即人为地增加一个限制:所有情况只存在于两种情形,非此即彼。这种错误也称为:非法的 either ... or.



他的意思是不是说,支持的没有可能当选
不支持的会当选
这两种非此即彼的选项呢

以下是引用dorbear在2003-9-25 9:36:00的发言:

而解题中把这种其它的情形随便找出一个出来,或直接说明这种情形的存在性(如此题),就是答案。本题中忽略了不支持税法也不懂经济的那帮人;因为他们不支持税法,所以也有可能当选。



D的选项没说不支持税法也不懂经济的人有可能当选啊

而我觉得C中说不支持的人也有可能不当选,不是也反驳了这个false dilemma吗

还是不是很明白啊
37#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-9-25 11:27:00 | 只看该作者
这个是九道BF中的一题

4. More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced, and it is thus increasingly unnecessary for practicing engineers to have a thorough understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Consequently, in training engineers who will work in industry, less emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles, so that space in the engineering curriculum will be available for other important subjects. The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?  
(A) The first is the second-premise that the argument includes; the second is the conclusion that could be drawn from this passage.
(B) The first is the fact that is necessary for this argument; the second is the conclusion that must be drawn from this passage.
(C) The first is the part of premise that the argument includes; the second is the inference that could be drawn from this passage.
(D) The first is the part of evidence that supports this argument; the second is the inference that could be drawn from this passage.
(E) The first is the first conclusion in this argument; the second is the second conclusion in this argument.
参考答案 : E

我想问下first conclusion 和second conclusion的关系
和mid conclusion 和conclusion的关系一样吗

mid conclusion其实只是作为最后的conclusion的一个条件,两者在程度上我感觉好象是不同的

而first conclusion 和second conclusion并列的关系吗
就是说是不是哪怕省略了first conclusion,也是可以根据前面的条件,推出second conclusion呢

NN指点!
38#
发表于 2003-9-25 11:30:00 | 只看该作者
注意看一下提问部分: 问的是那种情况被忽略了?

千万要小心提问部分。
39#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-9-25 13:28:00 | 只看该作者
还有一个也关于bf的问题

premise 和evidence 和fact到底有什么区别

看BF题总结中,说principle是一种basic truth表事先已认同的
那么,premise 是不是也可以当成是一种basic truth啊

还有,inference 和conclusion到底有什么区别

谢谢
40#
发表于 2003-9-25 13:51:00 | 只看该作者
先回答问题:
1、所有的逻辑,基本都是一个模式: 从已知的事情 =〉未知的事情
已知的事情,可以是Principle, Basic Truth, Premise,甚至是另外一个命题,总之无所谓叫什么,也用不着区分。只要知道那些是论据,哪些是结论就可以了。

2、推论题必须绝对严格按照原文的文字内容;不能有任何超过原文的假设和附加条件;推论题的答案可以来源于原文的任何一个地方;或者是对其中一句话的改写、对比、取逆反、类比、归纳,计算等等,甚至可能是原文命题中的一个假设;

3、结论题(conclusion)是推论的一种,是针对文章整体的推论,一般出现在段落开始或结尾部分。既然结论是推论的一种特殊情况,在一道推论题中,结论和推论不可能同时出现在选项;换言之,如果出现任何一个,肯定是答案;



[此贴子已经被作者于2003-9-25 14:11:32编辑过]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-5-20 00:43
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部