[求助]问两条诡异的Prep逻辑题，破解版CR2-17,24，

karen_bai19

啊，果真粗心，谢谢楼上点拨：）

zoeyun

(E) In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.

这句话为什么是原文的逆否命题呢？我总觉得它应该是否命题啊？

文章的逻辑链是不是：vaccine contaminated with SV40->vaccine was the source of SV40 in mesothe?

那么文章前面的那几句话对文章的推理又起什么作用呢？

 盼望指教~~~

adcc5460

以下是引用littleca在2007-7-4 1:57:00的发言：

17. 仔细阅读题目指令，“The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that” ，如果我把它改写成“The Argument is problematic because it suggests....” or "it can be inferred that...."，你是不是就不会错了呢？：）

所以我认为题目并不是WEAKEN，而是归纳。正确选项实际是对原文内容的改写。

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
正是对“Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.”的改写。

应该是weaken题，虽然这道题可以用你的方法解释，但是总的归类还是weaken。

这道题典型属于：为达某目的，采用某方法，问采取这种方法不能达到目的的选项。不就是选weaken么？

直接选择否定方法的选项。

因为我做这类题不看全题，只看最后的方法和目的。所以咱们可能在理解上有区别。

（期待指正）

Whitney

24.   (28903-!-item-!-188;#058&004064)

 Although
exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a
slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40
virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of
tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue,
contain SV40.  SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus.  Researchers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.

 
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' hypothesis?

(A) SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.

(B) Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent contamination with SV40.

(C) Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.

(D) In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.

(E) In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.

Only (C) is right answer. (E) just nothing to do with the question answered.

hollygrail

2-17 我做错了.REVIEW的时候有一些的新的想法:
首先题目的问法: The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that....
这句话提供了两个信息: 1.选项必须是WEAKEN结论的.  2.选项要能从原文中推出.
我把这种题目归纳成 WEAKEN + MAY BE TRUE题

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
如果C成立,那么坐高凳子的顾客会待得久,WEAKEN了题目Reasoning Line中得 逗留时间下降,利润上升
而且C能从题目中有可能推出来(或者和题目的信息不矛盾)
Generalization是对通常情况下得出的,但是Hollywood的顾客有其特殊性:他们是来看名人的.这样使Hollywood的顾客有可能成为Generalization的一个特例.
注意这里的a customer是泛指.

(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
D仅是WEAKEN.

(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables
E仅可以从文中推出. 都坐高凳子 -> 看不名人了 对利润的影响不知道.

这道题目很强!

long43

请教楼主，破解的CR在哪里可以下载，非常感谢

Mars861227

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities.  Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.  Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

 

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

Mars861227

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities.  Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.  Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

文章说游客总是去餐厅看名人，并且游客喜欢做高凳，因为它可以提供一个更好的视野看名人，并且高凳的旅客比低凳的旅客待时间短

因此，如果如果把低凳换成高凳，利润会增加

推理逻辑：一个客人在高凳待的时间短（吃得快，走的快），所以客流量就会增加（假定价格不会降低）所以利润会增加。

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

上述对于批评是脆弱的，因为它（criticism）给出原因相信下面哪些是可能发生的

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

 选择作高凳的客人对于文章关于停留时间的概括是例外，就是说选择做高等的客人不会呆的时间短，客流量不会增加，就不会增加利润（没有反对前提，因为文章没说客人选择做高凳，同时没有提价格，就假定价格是一定的（类似促销那道题））

(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer

D说那些花时间少的人定的总会预定价格比较低的食物（客流增加了，但单位价格降低了，利润不一定就会增加）

totalgloria

楼上才是正解，说得很清楚，THX

fansea

对的
看了17楼对D项的分析，我恍然大悟~