TTGWD25-3 帮帮忙！！！

benman

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best

Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has

done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with

a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat:  No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few

judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative

effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A.    attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members

of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.

B.     mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

C.     attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely

by pointing to the absence of negative effects

D.    simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support

of that denial

E.     assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group

necessarily benefit all members of that group.

 

the answer offered is A but I choose C. Why??? Thanks...

                                  

imp01

正是因为BAN，很多best  Candidates 才不去做JUDGES的

而不能说是因JUDGES教书的不多，BAN 也就无所谓

benman

以下是引用imp01在2006-8-23 21:18:00的发言：

正是因为BAN，很多best  Candidates 才不去做JUDGES的

而不能说是因JUDGES教书的不多，BAN 也就无所谓

yeah, you are right. thx

Then what's wrong with C? Isn't Chioce C just the same logical structure as Pat's response???

caterpillarcn

I think we have to take into consideration the argument Mel gave: raising the pay for the judge will have positive effect if there is no ban. so disproving the ban's negative effect does show that the tactic will have a positive effect.
so there is nothing wrong with the logic of choice C.

I think we have to take into consideration the argument Mel gave: raising the pay for the judge will have positive effect if there is no ban. so disproving the ban's negative effect does show that the tactic will have a positive effect.
so there is nothing wrong with the logic of choice C.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-23 23:29:37编辑过]

当当84

谁能帮忙解释一下，这道题，真的不知道c错在哪里？

caterpillarcn

C is correct in its logic, so C is not inadequate.

zzlz

以下是引用caterpillarcn在2006-8-25 11:28:00的发言：
C is correct in its logic, so C is not inadequate.

这么解释吗?

C表达的意思是通过指出没有负面影响来支持一个有正面影响的观点.显然不是原文的逻辑矛盾所在,所以错误.

这道逻辑题的冲突点是把一个导致的现象,也就是结果描述成为原因.

mel:因为禁令不能教书和上课而导致收入少

pat:老师很少上课和教书啊.(废话)

freshfruit

是选择更好的，

C只是概括的题目中表达的特殊场景，而A是对场景本质的一般性概括。

A显然比C更适合选

leoozop

以下是引用caterpillarcn在2006-8-23 23:27:00的发言：

I think we have to take into consideration the argument Mel gave: raising the pay for the judge will have positive effect if there is no ban. so disproving the ban's negative effect does show that the tactic will have a positive effect.
so there is nothing wrong with the logic of choice C.

I think we have to take into consideration the argument Mel gave: raising the pay for the judge will have positive effect if there is no ban. so disproving the ban's negative effect does show that the tactic will have a positive effect.
so there is nothing wrong with the logic of choice C.

I think we have to take into consideration the argument Mel gave: raising the pay for the judge will have positive effect if there is no ban. so disproving the ban's negative effect does show that the tactic will have a positive effect.
so there is nothing wrong with the logic of choice C.

支持A,这题是围绕加工资的有效性来说的，不是BAN的有效性～

M加工资没作用，因为BAN禁止讲座。

F加工资有作用，因为现在很少J去讲座，BAN将来没有消极作用。

C讲一个变化的积极作用通过说它没有消极作用。

这里的变化是指的要不要加工资，而不是要不要取消BAN。

小蓓

A.     attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members

of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.

看了又看，感觉A中的potential members有问题，不知指什么？

大家选A的理由是：把BAN已造成的影响误作BAN之前的状况。可是A说的是把对current members的影响当作对potential members的影响

支持C