天山－3－16－急马上考了，谢谢大家帮忙！

xiaotou

T-3-Q16.
            

In response to mounting public concern, an airplane manufacturers implement a program with well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the division’s hazardous waste was 90 pounds per production worker, last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer’s program has not met its goal are false.

 

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

 

1. the amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1984

2. at least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994

3. since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.

4. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.

5. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

答案b, 我选e . 我觉得b是无关得吗，有人能解释一下吗？

FlowerJay

题目的reasoning是，94年per worker>last year per worker  --> program sucessful

B. passenger jet 总量一样，也就是说工作量一样.工作量一样，每个工人的waste少了，所以program sucessful.

把E去非，94年工人比去年少，这样不能weaken结论。 不能说人多，每个人的waste就多；人少每个人的waste就少。

把B去非，94年的产量大，所以94年的waste多，而不是因为program，weaken题目。

情指教

findjuhl

这道题选E

文中的推理是基于浪费和工人的关系，就是每个人的浪费量，所以答案应该和工人的数量有关系而跟其他因素无关，比如产量、工作时间、其他部门、部门浪费总量都没有关系。应该可以立即排除ABCD。

那么为什么选E呢，文中的推理是说94年的人均浪费90磅，到了去年才人均40磅，所以很成功。这里有一个隐患的假设，就是这个比较的基础是必须人的基数不能有很大变化，否则人均就不是一个准确的衡量单位了。好比中国现在国民生产总值比较高，但人均很低，如果中国人少了一半，马上就可以发达国家的人均水平了。但这显然不是中国的真实水平。

所以，E说94年的人没有比现在显著的少。如果现在的人显著增加了，那么这个人均自然就低了，同时也没有比较的意义了。

这种题GWD里很常见，答案都是一个类型，即原文推理中的若干fact的初始值都是相同的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-10 2:18:58编辑过]

FlowerJay

我给楼主找来一N人。哈哈。接着提问题： 如果把E取非，我觉得未必weaken题目推理。有可能是这样的，人显著增加了，如果同时产量也显著增加，这样人均waste减小了，依旧可以说明program是成功的。。

恳请指点阿。。。在下绕不出来

findjuhl

这里原文有个前提，, an airplane manufacturers implement a program with well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division

即减少一半的年污染物。同时文章使用人均来推，结果推出来人均的确少了一半，所以成功了实现这个减少一半污染的目标。你说它缺什么前提？

FlowerJay

我觉得E assume了产量恒定。如果去年的产量比94年大,产量大waste就高了，这样即使去年的人多（E非），由于成功的program，其人均还是减少了。 这里要是program不起作用的话，人均的waste可能比40 要多。。。 所以这样的话E非没有weaken原题阿。

findjuhl

原文的前提，是神圣不可侵犯的，不能质疑。

否则任何逻辑题你都推不出来，因为前提都可以改变，如同你的意愿一样。

xiaotou

对于b

let's say as many as passenger jets were produced last year as in 1994

but each jet has more waste output

and they had fewer workers

“the division’s hazardous waste was 90 pounds per production worker, last year it was 40 pounds per production worker.”could still happen

but it doesnt support the conclusion :  airplane manufacturers implement a program with well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division.

对于e一个老外得解释）

depends how "significantly" is defined. the argument is that the manufacturer has reduced byhalf the amount of hazardous waste.If in 1994 there were 10 workers working at 90 pounds per production worker (total of 900 punds), and in 2004 there were 50 workers at 40 punds per produciton worker (total of 2000 pounds), the argument fails. But if the diference was only one worker, which could be significantly less if there were only a few workers, then the arguemnt would still work.

但我觉得好像b和e结合起来才对吧

kuangshidian

以下是引用FlowerJay在2006-10-10 2:39:00的发言：

我觉得E assume了产量恒定。如果去年的产量比94年大,产量大waste就高了，这样即使去年的人多（E非），由于成功的program，其人均还是减少了。 这里要是program不起作用的话，人均的waste可能比40 要多。。。 所以这样的话E非没有weaken原题阿。

当然不是？ 为什么产量大waste就高了？ 难道这不是你做的一个假设么？

我认为是E。 如果人没多的话，就算产量增加，waste也是等于waste per worker 乘以 人数。 如果waste per worker 减少而人数不减的话总的waste的量是一定减少的。

罗马青年

?