9月group 1 问题讨论贴

慧

此贴用做问题讨论。欢迎大家多多指教。

sicivi

把我们的进度贴贴过来，方便切换：

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=34&replyid=3048202&id=338373&page=1&skin=0&Star=1

为了得到更多人的意见，我把它们贴在语法区了，但是据我看来，现在各个分区有时候问题得不到积极解答和讨论，所以请队友们一定帮忙看一下！

Q1: OG-SC-63 http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=338490&page=1

O2: OG-SC-67 http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=23&id=338491

感叹一下，每次看OG都会有新的问题产生啊！

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-7 21:21:08编辑过]

caojie8182

Sicivi, 我现在也有点晕，不过你说的两题OG上的解释不充分，我是这么理解的，咱们一起讨论下：

63：把in danger 作为一个约定俗成的短语结构，这样排除剩下 AB了,然后根据意思从逻辑上理解不应该是用to区表示目的，而是进一步解释什么样的danger，所以就是A

67：我错选的是B，觉得要简洁，把D排除了。主要是so as to的用法，后来查了一下好像是这样的so+[adj]+as to+[verb]，这么看这里选项里面都用错了，那就不选，结合require的用法，就是D了。

大家觉得呢？我的思路经常是很美逻辑的，嘿嘿。

sicivi

？你说的是我说的题目么？

caojie8182

哦,我是用的OG 10的序列, 难不成差了?...

我也有不明白的呀, 见下, 想了一晚上没想清楚:


    

Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is
useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.

    

Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated
that vaccine as unusually effective.

    

Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty
because the vaccine is worthless.

    

In which of the following is the reasoning
most similar to that of Dr. A?

    

(A) Three of my
patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the
vaccine is unsafe.

    

(B) Jerrold
Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy
this milk.

    

(C) Wingzz
tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other
tennis balls.

    

(D) I’m buying
Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other
vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.（C）

    

(E) Since University of Muldoon
graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a
University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20
percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.

    

就是这种对话,然后找一样reasoning的题目怎么去想才对呢?

sicivi

不知道答案是什么，你这道题目我看了很久。我选A。

第一感觉是：Dr.A 先入为主，假定他的结论是正确的，然后否定与他相反的结论(或者说否定相反结论来源的可靠性），但是根据这样的思路我没有找到类似的选项。

第二感觉：因为是对信息来源的可靠性产生质疑，所以针对这一点又看了一遍题目，觉得是B.但是仔细一看，觉得逻辑是相反的：原文是根据既定的结论来对信息来源给出评价，而B是事先对信息来源给出评价，然后再得出结论，所以B肯定是错的。

又看了一遍问题，硬着头皮继续想下去:问题问相似的reasoning,而reasoning的体现必然是Dr. A的两句话，而且第二句更能够体现他的reasoning.仔细看了一下第二句，发现他的结论是对study做出的，而Dr.B说的只是这三个study都rated that vaccine as unusually effective，但并没有说这三个study都是针对这个vaccine的（比如说是一个针对市面上所有vaccine的调查报告），所以Dr.A可以说是以偏概全了，以局部的fault来否定整体。

所以我选A.(错了哈哈)

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-5 2:15:42编辑过]

rattledrum

153. Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have made converting solar energy directly into electricity far more cost-efficient in the last decade. However, the threshold of economic viability for solar power (that is, the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants) is unchanged at thirty-five dollars.

大家，红线部分的句子成分怎么划分啊？

 

Which of the following, if true, does most to help explain why the increased cost-efficiency of solar power has not decreased its threshold of economic viability?

(A) The cost of oil has fallen dramatically.

(B) The reduction in the cost of solar-power equipment has occurred despite increased raw material costs for that equipment.

(C) Technological changes have increased the efficiency of oil-fired power plants.

(D) Most electricity is generated by coal-fired or nuclear, rather than oil-fired, power plants.

(E) When the price of oil increases, reserves of oil not previously worth exploiting become economically viable. C

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-5 0:17:32编辑过]

rattledrum

我知道了，应该是：

the price per barrel to which oil would have to rise in order for new solar power plants to be more economical than new oil-fired power plants

　　

rattledrum

前辈的解释：

  　　

题干：在过去的十年中，技术的改善和设备成本的降低使太阳能直接转化为电力更加划算，但是太阳能发电经济可行性的门槛依旧维持在35元（即：油价应该涨到这样一个价格，使新建的太阳能发电厂比新建的石油发电厂更加经济）（暗示目前一般用石油发电）

问：为什么太阳能发电的成本效益增加了却没有降低进入太阳能发电其经济可行性的门槛？

选C技术的变化提高了石油发电工厂的效率。(石油发电和太阳能发电的效率都有所提高，因此太阳能发电的门槛没变)

  　　

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&replyID=1680482&id=177813&skin=0

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-5 0:35:05编辑过]

lazzycat_wxh

原文的逻辑错误是循环论证没错（更多的有关循环论证的见“跟LAWYER学逻辑”中的FLAW IN THE REASONING）。但A不是循环论证错误，如果说A有逻辑错误，那是例子太少，没代表性。答案是C：因为more effective than any other ，所以 best 。前提和结论一样。

搜了一下这是lawyer的解释。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-5 1:18:33编辑过]