GWD7-38对参考答案的疑惑

二狼神

gwd-7-38

Q38:

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

1. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
      
2. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
      
3. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
      
4. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
      
5. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

I vote C.This is hearsay; because we are not in a position to check the journalist's sources we have no way to evaluate the reliability of the information.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-5-22 13:31:30编辑过]

wycg

楼主先看一下前人的讨论可能会对你有些启发

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=58525&page=1

C是无关项. journalists从哪里获得information于评价Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year没关.

二狼神

前面的讨论我昨天全部看过了.都是讨论别的选项的,没人讨论过C所以我才郁闷啊.如果journalists的消息不是directly from the election commission,而是二手,三手的小道消息,它的真实性是无法确认的,怎么能做为客观前提来作评估呢?

对于E我的意见是:B以前的行为不能作为评估依据,因为B以前的行为跟后果没有必然联系,同样的行为可能有不同的后果:比如B以前确实交了表,但如果他交了N次,其中N/2次交表后参选了,另外N/2次交表后又反悔了不参选,那么他以前交不交表跟他参不参选的联系是不确定的,在这种不确定的基础上怎么来根据他以前有无交表来评估他会不会参选呢?

yaoyao99

You're evaluating the argument, (fullfilling requirement => running for governor) not "did Bergeron really fullfill the requirement."

二狼神

以下是引用yaoyao99在2006-5-21 12:18:00的发言：
You're evaluating the argument, (fullfilling requirement => running for governor) not "did Bergeron really fullfill the requirement."

是啊,我前面楼上说了,如果这个消息它的真实性无法确认的话,怎么能做为客观前提来作评估呢?

原文的问题是"evaluating the journalist’s argument",作为一个 argument它的前提跟结论都在评估范围内吧?为何就得接受它的前提是真实的呢?如果前提不成立,那这个argument就肯定有问题的呀.

yaoyao99

E is more relevant in the causal relationship between the financial requirement and governor candidacy.  C merely undermines the basis of the argument, not the argument itself.

二狼神

MM,按你说 C 都已经 undermines the basis of the argument了,这还不能 undermines  the argument itself?我真的不明白呀,没了前提的结论自己还能安然无恙?

yaoyao99

Hmm. let's try approaching this differently.

If someone asks you to evaluate the validity of the argument "I bought 1000 lottery tickets today so I must have a good chance at winning it."  You won't think of evaluating it based on "did you really buy 1000 tickets" but the relationship between 1000 tickets and winning the lottery.

Hope that helps!

二狼神

MM,你举的例子跟这题是完全不同的.原文说"we have just learned that ",蓝字跟中文一般翻译的意思有区别,是指"听说,打听到"的意思,所以我一开头就说this is hearsay,这种小道消息是没有必然的真实性的,因为它可能已经过了N手才传到journalists这里,而用没有证实过的hearsay来作论证是不可能站得住脚的.

总之,在evaluate题中我觉得跟削弱或支持题差不多,对于前提如果不是客观的都是可以被攻击的.

二狼神