3. GWD25-Q3.
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.
想通了确实C。
a. Potential members of the group. 有问题。candidate在问题没有解决之前根本不会成为potential members； 问题的焦点在于能不能提高工资。到底能不能找到好人是建立在工资基础上的，这是后话。我们应该把mel的第一句话看成正确的公理正确的前提。只要解决工资问题，整个题目就结束了。所以potential member根本不涉及：并不是说以后招了新人新的member以后，这个新人的工资不高。人家根本不申请不会走到memeber这一步。就算是这个potential 没有问题。a也不对。因为pat的论证本身就不成立（看下面分析），所以pat的论证根本没有，是不足的问题，他的问题是补充论据。a是承认了pat的论证！，在此基础上说论证不严密。pat的论证是完全错误的，因此是inadequate。b给了暗示。
c. merely 和题干中的Inadequate 一致。
Pat的逻辑有两个问题1. 因果倒置，将果-没人教书当成了因-钱够多了。2.就算是1.的逻辑正确，他还论证不足（这就是说问什么题目说INadequate，不足而不是完全错误）
因此pat需要补充更多的论证，现在的问题是：到底应该怎么批驳mel呢？1. 他说增加收入没效果因为同时不准教书，这个理由很牵强，同时给你一个限制并不表示不改善你的工资啊。比如说我不准你教书但是同时我把你的工资涨10倍。你咋不说我给你涨工资你，怎么光说我不能你走穴呢？！因此用七宗罪的话来说就是，gratuitous assumption，mel的假设是工资没涨，如果他假设工资涨了10倍他的逻辑不攻自破。
因此，pat不应该说现在没人教书这个理由因为：这个理由本身错误。 所以说pat论证了半天等于一句话没有反驳。这就是说Inadequate reasoning！正是题目所要的，也正是C。C的意思是就算现在pat的逻辑正确，你pat也要在深入的说两句为什么有效啊：比如指出在不让教书没有影响（暂时认为这个理由正确）的同时，他们的工资涨了10倍，所以我pat断定效果明显。 但是a选项无论如何pat没有办法加入到他的论证中去，因此a不会使得他的论证adequate。
什么时候B正确呢？
题目改成，pat的论证错在什么地方？
B。他把果当成了因。 这个时候B对。
但是话说回来，mel的论证本身是错的。所以题目不能上来问pat的错误，好像mel正确一样。所以说ETS是深入考虑的。如果mel的逻辑很完善本身没有问题，我想ETS会按着这个方式出题的。我们看到过很多这样的例子了。
欢迎讨论。
美国人的分析如下。
The phrase improve the situation in Mel's statement has nothing to do with lectures and teaching. The situation to which Mel is referring is that the best candidates are not attracted to become judges, and Mel thinks the reason for this is low pay. The recent raise in salaries would solve this problem, but, according to Mel, the effect of that raise is cancelled by the other part of the legislative package, a simultaneous reduction in judges' income from other activities (lectures and teaching). Mel's argument has nothing to do with how many judges teach, or with wanting to increase teaching activity. Mel's focus is strictly on attracting the best candidates to become judges, and whether or not the legislative package will do that.
Pat says that the legislative moves WILL work to improve the situation (i.e. attract qualified candidates). However, the only evidence Pat provides is that the ban on teaching income that was part of the legislative package will NOT cancel the effect of the raise, since most judges don't teach anyway. So Pat shows that there will not be a negative effect, and from there concludes that the effect will be positive.
All of this to say that I think C is the correct answer.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-2-15 07:00:00
