狒狒笔记中一题，大家来给个答案吧～～

xiaowan

谢谢大家回帖，看了大家的讨论，自己又好好想了一下，现在有了点想法，欢迎继续讨论～～

例1. Because incumbent members of Congress are given a great deal of attention by the news media

and because they enjoy such perquisites as free mail privileges and generous travel allowances,

incumbents enjoy an overwhelming advantage over their challengers in elections for the United

States Congress.

  Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim above?

(A) In the last congressional elections, incumbents met with a larger number of lobbyists than did

challengers.

(B) In the last congressional elections, 98 percent of the incumbents in the House of Representatives who were seeking reelection won.

(C) Incumbent members of Congress are frequently critical of the amount of attention given to them

by the news media.

(D) The support that political station action committees provide to challengers for congressional seats often compensates for the perquisites enjoyed by incumbent members of Congress.

(E) Of all incumbent senators surveyed before the last congressional elections, 78 percent said that their challengers did not pose a serious threat to their chances for reelection.

支持：incumbents有优势

原文给出，因为：1有媒体关注 2 有额外补助   所以：有优势

A incumbent遇到了更多的lobbyists   只是遇到，遇到以后是不是可以带来优势，不知道

B：House of Representatives ？United States Congress is discussed in the argument.

D 支持常常补偿incumbent的额外补助，有补助，有优势，与原文一致

E 很多incumbent说没有遇到威胁，只是说没有遇到严重的威胁，还是产生了一定威胁，压倒性优势是说，对手根本构不成威胁

所以还是选D吧

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-8 9:28:04编辑过]

xiaowan

这里再贴最后一个和答案有出入的题，大家讨论：

例4. The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses

more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything

on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to

meet government requirements.

  Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserve for

improvements.

(B) The operations of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of

large companies.

(C) Safety regulation codes are uniform, established without reference to size of company.

(D) Large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other business than do small

companies.

(E) Large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversity the markets and

products.

帖子上的答案选C，我觉得应该选A

削弱题，是要让做出结论方产生反应

题目说安全条例对大公司难度更大，因为他们规模大，需要更复杂的投资和技术

A说，大公司有更多的资本储备，由此可见，这并不是一件难事了

C 原文承认安全条例是统一的，没有说对大公司不一样，只是说对于同样的条例，大公司实施起来更困难，所以不能削弱，对原结论没有影响

欢迎讨论

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-8 9:28:40编辑过]

gonghao

以下是引用xiaowan在2006-10-8 9:06:00的发言：

谢谢大家回帖，看了大家的讨论，自己又好好想了一下，现在有了点想法，欢迎继续讨论～～

例1. Because incumbent members of Congress are given a great deal of attention by the news media

and because they enjoy such perquisites as free mail privileges and generous travel allowances,

incumbents enjoy an overwhelming advantage over their challengers in elections for the United

States Congress.

  Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim above?

(A) In the last congressional elections, incumbents met with a larger number of lobbyists than did

challengers.

(B) In the last congressional elections, 98 percent of the incumbents in the House of Representatives who were seeking reelection won.

(C) Incumbent members of Congress are frequently critical of the amount of attention given to them

by the news media.

(D) The support that political station action committees provide to challengers for congressional seats often compensates for the perquisites enjoyed by incumbent members of Congress.

(E) Of all incumbent senators surveyed before the last congressional elections, 78 percent said that their challengers did not pose a serious threat to their chances for reelection.

支持：incumbents有优势

原文给出，因为：1有媒体关注 2 有额外补助   所以：有优势

A incumbent遇到了更多的lobbyists   只是遇到，遇到以后是不是可以带来优势，不知道

B：House of Representatives ？United States Congress is discussed in the argument.

D 支持常常补偿incumbent的额外补助，有补助，有优势，与原文一致

E 很多incumbent说没有遇到威胁，只是说没有遇到严重的威胁，还是产生了一定威胁，压倒性优势是说，对手根本构不成威胁

所以还是选D吧

can't agree with you any more.

In choice D,political station action committees provide support to challengers  for congressional seats and meanwhile the commitees want to set a balance to compensate the incumbent members of Congress.

So in general ,we can't find that incumbent members will have great advantages since the commitees support challengers as well.

E stands in scope of the argument ,and the santors do not feel they were threathened by challengers and more than 75% of them feel in that way . Overwheliming advantages is distinct for sure.

So E is the answer.

gonghao

以下是引用xiaowan在2006-10-7 22:09:00的发言：

       Scientists now believe that artificial-hip implants, previously thought to be safe, may actually

increase the risk of cancer in recipients after about 45 years of use. Though these implants do

improve the quality of recipient’s lives, the increased risk of cancer is an unacceptable price to pay

for these improvements. Therefore, they should be banned.

  Which of the following, if true, is the strongest counterargument to the argument above?

(A) Artificial-hip implant surgery can cause severe complications, such as infection, chronic fever, and bone degeneration, and these complications can themselves be crippling or even fatal.

(B) Almost all artificial-hip implant recipients receive their implants at an age when they are unlikely to live more than an additional 30 years.

(C) Although artificial-hip implants increase the risk of cancer after about 45 year of use, a few of

the cancers they induce are not fatal.

(D) Since artificial-hip implants are not very common, banning them would cause little hardship.

(E) Although the benefits of artificial-hip implant surgery have remained substantially the same over

the past decade, the price of the surgery has risen considerably.

这题网上给的答案是C，可我觉得C不对，B才对呀，C的意思说还是会有很多cancers are fatal的呀

agree with you

the answer for this question is B definetely

mbz

以下是引用xiaowan在2006-10-8 9:06:00的发言：

谢谢大家回帖，看了大家的讨论，自己又好好想了一下，现在有了点想法，欢迎继续讨论～～

例1. Because incumbent members of Congress are given a great deal of attention by the news media

and because they enjoy such perquisites as free mail privileges and generous travel allowances,

incumbents enjoy an overwhelming advantage over their challengers in elections for the United

States Congress.

  Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim above?

(A) In the last congressional elections, incumbents met with a larger number of lobbyists than did

challengers.

(B) In the last congressional elections, 98 percent of the incumbents in the House of Representatives who were seeking reelection won.

(C) Incumbent members of Congress are frequently critical of the amount of attention given to them

by the news media.

(D) The support that political station action committees provide to challengers for congressional seats often compensates for the perquisites enjoyed by incumbent members of Congress.

(E) Of all incumbent senators surveyed before the last congressional elections, 78 percent said that their challengers did not pose a serious threat to their chances for reelection.

支持：incumbents有优势

原文给出，因为：1有媒体关注 2 有额外补助   所以：有优势

A incumbent遇到了更多的lobbyists   只是遇到，遇到以后是不是可以带来优势，不知道

B：House of Representatives ？United States Congress is discussed in the argument.

D 支持常常补偿incumbent的额外补助，有补助，有优势，与原文一致

E 很多incumbent说没有遇到威胁，只是说没有遇到严重的威胁，还是产生了一定威胁，压倒性优势是说，对手根本构不成威胁

所以还是选D吧

MM, the meaning of D is the opposite of what you think. Hence D weakens the arguement.

It says that the committe is helping the challengers so that the challengers can shorten the gap against the incumbents.

A is right because it is the lobbyists who approach the congressmen, not the other way around. These lobbyists represent the wealthy group who need help from the congressmen.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-8 10:00:13编辑过]

xiaowan

为什么说对手也有支持者，就体现不出incumbents的优势了呢？这两者不矛盾吧，选举的双方都获得支持，只是一方多，一方少不就行了，当一方很多是就形成了压倒性优势。所以不是很理解为什么因为对手获得了支持就一定体现不出压倒，继续讨论。。。

mbz

说白点，议员要见说客只有一个目的：拿钱来。说客要见议员只有一个目的：钱来了，以后请多多关照送钱给你竟选连任的团体。而经费足是竟选的优势之一。

xiaowan

mbz GG, 我觉得A是一定不对的哦～

A incumbent遇到了更多的lobbyists   只是遇到，遇到以后是不是可以带来优势，不知道，incumbent见了很多lobbyists，可是lobbyists一定会给他们很多帮助么？文中没说，觉得照你说的那样，好像推的太多了

而且这题在狒狒笔记中是出现在如下两个类型的例子中的： 1桥梁 2 结论存在

所以再次证明A不对吧～ 

mbz

以下是引用xiaowan在2006-10-8 10:24:00的发言：

mbz GG, 我觉得A是一定不对的哦～

A incumbent遇到了更多的lobbyists   只是遇到，遇到以后是不是可以带来优势，不知道，incumbent见了很多lobbyists，可是lobbyists一定会给他们很多帮助么？文中没说，觉得照你说的那样，好像推的太多了

而且这题在狒狒笔记中是出现在如下两个类型的例子中的： 1桥梁 2 结论存在

所以再次证明A不对吧～ 

Xiaowan MM,

没关系，我的想法仅供参考

不好意思，gonghao 班班，好像我在跟你抢饭碗似的。只是这两天看书看的头昏脑胀，所以来逛逛。看见了这个讨论，忍不住发发缪论

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-8 10:52:05编辑过]

xiaowan

哈哈～～大家讨论啊～～gonghao斑斑肯定欢迎呢～呵呵。。。