[求助]OG11-120

chanx_ceci

The proposal to hire 10 new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is wufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new offices, but not the salaties of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

a, Studies have shown that an increase in a city's police force does not neccessarily reduce crime.

b, When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.

c, If funding for the nes police offices' salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.

d, In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.

e, Middletown's ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrnt effect on crime.

答案是：E     我选了D，我觉得E中的ratio好像没什么用吧，为什么到了一定的level，crime就能得到抑制呢，题目中不是说，officers越多，crime就越多吗？？

自己实在是想不明白，请各位大虾帮帮忙！！！谢谢！！！

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-8 11:43:00编辑过]

vinlle

菜鸟试试回答一下，

警察数量上升---->用于arrest和conviction的雇员上升

至于arrest是不是会引起conviction，我觉得是无关项，只要真的有arrest发生就符合它的逻辑了。

E选项中的ration=警察数量/市民数量，警察数量上升了，市民数量没变，ratio必然上升的，

只要ratio上升抑制了犯罪，arrest就不一定会上升了。

chanx_ceci

不太明白啊，为什么ratio上升了，就一定能抑制犯罪呢，题目不是说警察数量上升就会导致arrest上升吗？！

suaster

原文中的会影起arrest上升是一个作者没有论证的隐含条件

Ｅ就是攻击说这个隐含条件是不成立的

vicking

situation：他不愿增加police officer的人数以此来不增加court prison emplyees的人数                          答案说他增加police以震慑罪犯，也就是增加了police的人数，减少了犯罪的人数，从而不会增加court prison的人数 这样就weaken了吧

Drakedirect

B选项是无关，文中的focus是某个城市midtown，其他城市的情况并不会对于论证构成任何威胁。
E是正确选项，E说在midtown警察和市民的比例已经达到一定水平，如果增加警员的数量只能减少犯罪。如果像E所说的那样，即便增加10个警员，也不会有更多的犯罪，因而就不用支付对于其他人员的费用。因而削弱结论增加警员是很愚蠢的行为。

adven

    题干的意思是新警察通常会多抓人,由此产生一系列后果,导致需要更多的人手来处理这些事情,至于这个看法正确与否,不能先入为主认为其正确,它只是一种看法.E选项是从统计意义上来说,目前警民比例达到一个值,在此基础上增加警察是会起到威慑犯罪的作用的,不会使犯罪数量增加,从而weaken题干的推论.
    这种认识上的问题,表面现象和统计结果的冲突在现实中是很常见的.

lsw

I thought the subject again and again.

Answer E is right, I accepted.

But what's wrong with answer D?

I think that D is also weakeness.

lsw

以下是引用lsw在2007-8-29 15:52:00的发言：

I thought the subject again and again.

Answer E is right, I accepted.

But what's wrong with answer D?

I think that D is also weakeness.

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&replyID=676514&id=76411&skin=0

OG11-120 IS OG10-170

"看上去D也可以，但实际上属于多余的不当推理。不是所有的arrest会造成convictions 和prison，那么到底会有多少呢，并不知道，可能会造成没有sufficient funding to pay the salaries of additional court and prison employees，也可能不会，这是无法判断的"

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-8-29 16:03:53编辑过]

tyf250504110

ratio增加，不是一定就肯定抑制犯罪，weaken的题只要说得一点符合原文条件，但结论却和原文结论不同就ok阿~

不要那么看重选项里面的前因后果，只要选项遵循了满足条件，weaken结论就ok

take it easy  老美的题不会费你很多脑力的~