LAST-9-1-20，LSAT-9-1-22，LSA-10-2-2

lll123

sorry
20. Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.
Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?
A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.
B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.
C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.
(D) No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.
(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal
答案：b我不明白这句 “or instead would determine……”的意思,为什a不行？

22. For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of feudalism presupposed the existence of a noble class. Yet there cannot be a noble class, properly speaking, unless both the titles that indicate superior, noble status and the inheritance of such titles are sanctioned by law. Although feudalism existed in Europe as early as the eighth century, it was not until the twelfth century, when many feudal institutions were in decline, that the hereditary transfer of legally recognized titles of nobility first appeared.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following claims?
A) To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of a nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.
B) Prior to the twelfth century, the institution of European feudalism functioned without the presence of a dominant class.
C) The fact that a societal group has a distinct legal status is not in itself sufficient to allow that group to be properly considered a social class.
D) The decline of feudalism in Europe was the only cause of the rise of a European nobility.
E) The prior existence of feudal institutions is a prerequisite for the emergence of a nobility, as defined in the strictest sense of the term.
I was confused by the evidence and conclusion, so I can’t choose the right answer.

2. Tall children can generally reach high shelves easily. Short children can generally reach high shelves only with difficulty. It is known that short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults. Therefore, if short children are taught to reach high shelves easily, the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease.
A reasoning error in the argument is that the argument
A.attributes a characteristic of an individual member of a group to the group as a whole
B. presupposes that which is to be proved
C.refutes a generalization by mean of an exceptional case
D.assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has be indicated
E.take lack of evidence for the existence of a state of affairs as evidence that there can be no such state of affairs
answer: d,  I choose e


及几

dorbear

1. Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.
Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?
A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.
B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.
C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.
(D) No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.
(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal
答案：A我不明白这句 “or instead would determine……”的意思,为什B不行？
=====================================================
正确答案就是（B）

jq_jou

i think A) is also right, since if A) is the principle, then the building should be destroyed instead of rehabilated; but B) is also right, if it is the principle, the building should be rehabiliated instead  of destroyed.
Why a) is wrong?

BTW, 接着问同一个题目下的21题
21. Saunders’ reasoning is flawed because it

(A) relies on fear rather than on argument to persuade the neighborhood association to reject the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents

(B) fails to establish that there is anyone who could qualify for city funds who would be interested in buying and rehabilitating the houses

(C) mistakenly equates an absence of vocal public dissent with the presence of universal public support

(D) offers no evidence that the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents would not have succeeded if it had been given the chance

(E) does not specify the precise nature of the threat to neighborhood safety supposedly posed by the vandalized houses

right answer is d), why c) is wrong? the argument said 'no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat'-----treat this as 'everyone agrees with it' , just what c) says.
So why C) is wrong? Thx!

lll123

anybody here?

Across

好像这个题目巨难啊???

autumn_leaves

2:

conlusion:认为贵族阶级在封建制度前出现的说法不对

evidence:贵族阶级直到12世纪才出现(当两个必要条件都满足后),而封建制度8世纪就出现.