section1-1-3

wawa0916

The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by grizzly bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses. And the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore, a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.

3.     Which one of the following is an assumption that the author relies upon in the passage?

(A) Most incidents involving grizzly bears are fatal.

(B) Grizzly bears are no longer the danger they once were.

(C) The number of fatalities per year is an adequate indication of something’s dangerousness.

(D) A golf course is a particularly dangerous place to be in a thunderstorm.（C）

(E) Something is dangerous only if it results in death in the majority of cases.

想問E為什麼不對  謝謝

superfat

是c 吗

icewarm

This is a typical Assumption question. Notice the new element in the conclusion is "dangerous", thus it has to be addressed. All the premise in the statement were talking about numbers of fatalities, an assumption the author made is that number of fatalities is a reflection of degree of danger. Thus, C is the correct answer. It bridges the key element in the premise to the new element in the conlustion.

The function of an assumption if to fill the gap of reasoning.

One technique to test your answer is Negation Test. If you negate the answer and the conclusion doesn't stand any more, then this is the right answer.

ssssss

Premise 1:

The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by grizzly bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses.

Premise 2:

And the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders.

Conclusion:

All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore, a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.

Please read the premises and conclusion very carefully. Then you will sense a scope shift in the question stem. First it starts at “….the number of people killed by bear each year…” which is an actual number. Then in conclusion “…grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf…”. This is definitely not an actual number. There is a logical flaw in the argument. The logical flaw is “Mistakenly equating a Number with an amount”. Since the argument has a flaw, you need to assume

something that can fix this flaw.For instance, there can be a lot more incidents related to
   electric blender or a game of golf. But, the death number is the same as bear attack. Which proves that bear is less dangerous.

3.  Which one of the following is an assumption that the author relies upon in the passage?

(A) Most incidents involving grizzly bears are fatal.

Out of scope. We are talking about which one is dangerous here.

 

(B) Grizzly bears are no longer the danger they once were.

Out of scope.

 

 

(C) The number of fatalities per year is an adequate indication of something’s dangerousness.

Bingo, this support the conclusion.

 

(D) A golf course is a particularly dangerous place to be in a thunderstorm.（C）
  

Totally out of scope.

 

 

(E) Something is dangerous only if it results in death in the majority of cases.

Out of scope.

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-3-15 7:24:05编辑过]