请教lawyer的assumption取非的问题

fiaoyaya

202.Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Premise: 人均收入达到世界平均，人均对肉的消费也达到世界平均，产1P肉要好几P庄稼

Conclusion（条件型结论）: 如果人均收入继续上升（国内谷物产量不增加）->进口grain or meat or both

GAP：进口和premise联系起来。

推断：如果国内总的不需要进口，所以前提假设应该是meat在国内的产量不增加。

 

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially. （acreage不是讨论的范围）

(B) The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity. （growing prosperity无中生有）

(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels. （all income levels 之间的比较属于无关）

(D) In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls. （government price control） E

(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrea
        se their consumption of grain. （取非，不能否定结论，因为增加的量和减少的量不知，所以不能判定是否会import，跟上1题的干扰项出题比较类似）

这道题是我的思路,为什么结果和我的推断不一样啊?我错在哪里啊?

还有这道题目如果没有radically的话是不是就不是assumption了啊?因为不知道增加的量和减少的量的关系,所以就不知道是不是需要进口?我的理解对吗?

另外附上195

195. A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

Premise: change to federal income tax laws->减少所得税对慈善教育机构的捐款->有钱人就不允许减少所得税

Conclusion: 机构减少服务

根据具体性和特殊性先排除选项（注意，要从推理的过程出发）

 

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have. （正确，取非3次，all would，他们捐一样多的钱，所以不用关）

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions. （取非，provide other sources of funding for，那么在其他方面也可能会减少donation，所以不能否定结论）

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes. （not adopting the proposed change是无关）

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions. （取非，有其他组织捐钱，他们的钱会不会减少不知道，所以不能否定结论）
                A

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income. （应该怎么change是讨论范围之外的）
                    

偶觉得这两题很类似,偶做的时候选了D,后来看论坛里面有说B的，发现确实好象和D在本质上是一样的.大家可以把这里的B和D以及202题的E选项做一下比较,这里之所以不选B后者D,而上一题之所以选了E是不是主要是因为上一题有radically的限定啊?

wycg

以下是引用fiaoyaya在2006-5-24 0:38:00的发言：

(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrea
  se their consumption of grain. （取非，不能否定结论，因为增加的量和减少的量不知，所以不能判定是否会import，跟上1题的干扰项出题比较类似）

这道题是我的思路,为什么结果和我的推断不一样啊?我错在哪里啊?

原文说的是"吃肉的量增加了, 就是用的粮食的量增加了",这里所隐含的一个假设就是:人吃的粮食的量不会减少,因为要是减少的话,有可能就是变成肉的那些粮食是从减少的那部分粮食来的.只有E成立了之后,文章说的才对.   E是对的.

楼主干嘛要取非呢?把E取非的话不是给自己增加麻烦吗?

lawyer_1

202题答案E要用radically的原因是原文说了 several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat。 如果不用radically， 也可以是答案，但不够严密。你的理解陷入了MUST BE的陷阱，的确不陷入MUST BE的陷阱需要时间去体会。所谓的支持削弱，其本质就是说服力的增大和减少。整个GMAT的逻辑都在考说服性的问题，不是在考绝对性，世界上没有绝对的事情。

195题是范围的问题。因为政策影响的只是因为政策才捐钱的人，不影响不管何情况下都捐钱的人。B说的是前者，故是答案。D说的是后者，扩大了范围，故不是答案。

wycg

以下是引用lawyer_1在2006-5-24 19:40:00的发言：

所谓的支持削弱，其本质就是说服力的增大和减少。整个GMAT的逻辑都在考说服性的问题，不是在考绝对性，世界上没有绝对的事情。

说的真好. 是高人呀.