请教LSAT-2-11（lawyer改标题）

braveMBA

11. “If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.

“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?

(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.

(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.

(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.

(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.

(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

为什么选B？

Robin

有人说是打印错误。

mindfree

没有问题啊. 从逻辑关系的角度分析:

Biologist: forest disappear (A)--> extinction (B)
Politician: stop deforestation (非A)--> no extinction (非B)

两个论题是不同的, 相当与互为否命题.

B对. stop deforestation, extinction. 按politician的逻辑是不可能发生的, 因为非A-->非B. 但biologist的逻辑依然可以成立. 当A-->B, 非A might or might not lead to 非B

cranberry

佩服，MINDFREE，果然是厉害。
偶再就题目的意思罗嗦两句。本题意思是：如果森林以目前的速度消失，考拉将会接近灭绝。这从逻辑上就会产生一种结果，既只要森林不以目前的速度消失，考拉就灭绝或不灭绝，而不会是接近灭绝。

braveMBA

谢了。其实应该注意到的词汇, approach, become，都是些非绝对词汇，如果是决定词汇，恐怕就有问题了吧。至少B不会支持BOILOGIST，所以，还是要仔细。其实，白痴原则的第一直觉就是B，没有敢选，而是选了友好语言的D，甚至知道那是错的。哎，人生呀。

linchechin

Mindfree真是巨牛!!!

swimmingfrog

以下是引用mindfree在2003-5-3 2:07:00的发言：
没有问题啊. 从逻辑关系的角度分析:

Biologist: forest disappear (A)--> extinction (B)
Politician: stop deforestation (非A)--> no extinction (非B)

两个论题是不同的, 相当与互为否命题.

B对. stop deforestation, extinction. 按politician的逻辑是不可能发生的, 因为非A-->非B. 但biologist的逻辑依然可以成立. 当A-->B, 非A might or might not lead to 非B

A--->B 非A might or might not lead to 非B

B 答案是 非A---->B,  Biologist:A--->B 能和 非A---->B 一致吗?

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-3 4:13:16编辑过]

lawyer_1

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=66&ID=81719&page=1