请教OG黄皮77

mandy_lulu

 Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

 

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

 

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
            B

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
            

这题做两遍了看了OG解释还没明白个所以然,

我做逻辑感觉不管用,跟着分析脑子清楚.错得总是摸棱两可的.日子不多了,还糊涂着....

请教各位下,,先谢啦!

mandy_lulu

自己顶下些. 这题看OG解释还是犯糊涂,做了两遍了没明白个所以然.

我做OG境界没有,完全菜鸟级.日子不多了唉...

mandy_lulu

自己再顶下,答案说是B,而且解释的很牵强,用无关之类排除我当时自己选的是E,可再次看题目又有点无从下手的感觉,高人帮忙指点分析下为什么这题B是最合适的呢? 谢谢

rpch2004

77题我的理解是谈到失业率时，在基于人口分布应该平均的假设基础上的。

不过我对76题不理解，我只知道Sharon是对Roland的转折才选A，具体这两人之间的百分比是什么意思？90%的人知道有人失业，但正常情况是5%，怎么理解？谢谢

mandy_lulu

76题OG解释的还比较清楚.因为EVIDENCE是同样的,只是结论不同.SHARON指明的是失业率的%,更加客观说明情况.其实90%知道人数与5%实际失业人数之间没有架桥关系.A是说明ROLAND的逻辑推理错误.这题A和C之间比较难做判断.但是归纳题,所以我们从原文中推不出C.

刚刚我又想了下77,如果按LAWYER的取非思路的话,那答案是正确的,取非结论肯定不成立.问题是在考试时我怎么能推出这个思路呢,估计还是水平不够

ivyleaff

我们举例说，100人中有5个人失业了，有90个人都认识这5个所谓的“公众人物”，这样的话，并不说明国家的失业率很高。

    

B这个假设如果换成非否定，Sharon的解释就不合理。也就是说，如果unemployment concentrated in one
geographical ioslated
area，所有失业的人都集中在一个地区，那么这里的失业率是高。注意是这个地区，但还是该引起国家的alarm。

elaine1031

up