百思不得一解的 LSAT-15-4-9 和 LSAT-14-2-13 请指教

srzhang

15-4-9. Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who

(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan

(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected

(C) don not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected

(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics

(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

不知道此题该怎么列推导找瑕疵，答案是D，迷茫

14-2-13. From an analysis of broken pottery and statuary, archaeologists have estimated that an ancient settlement in southwestern Arabia was established around 1000 B.C. However, new evidence suggests that the settlement is considerably older: tests show that a piece of building timber recently uncovered at the site is substantially older than the pottery and statuary.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn from the new evidence?

(A) The building timber bore marks suggesting that it had been salvaged from an earlier settlement

(B) The pieces of pottery and fragments of statues that were analyzed come from several parts of the site

(C) The tests used to determine the age of the pottery and statuary had been devised more recently than those used to determine the age of the building timber

(D) The site has yielded many more samples of pottery and statuary than of building timber

(E) The type of pottery found at the site is similar to a type of pottery associated with civilizations that existed before 1000 B.C.

此题不知答案 A 怎的就UNDERMINE了

fyhllj

以下是引用coopers在2004-1-24 7:35:00的发言：
第一道题好像很简单啊:
support的人没机会赢,懂经济的人不会support, 推出 ---------> 懂经济的人才(ONLY)有机会赢.

那么这个范围缺了一种人,什么人呢?  ----------> 不懂经济但不support的人也有可能赢 (这个和第一个statement不矛盾, 和第二个也不矛盾,但和conculsion矛盾.

第二个, 嘿嘿, 不好意思,觉得也很简单嘛, 就是直接否定掉了.
结论是说这个settlement比原来估计的更老,因为里面有个timber比发现的pottery更老.
A是直接否定.   就是说这个timber上的mark说明这个timber是属于另外一个earlier settlement的, 所以不是属于第一个settlement的. 所以说第一个settlement比原来估计的要老这个结论是错误的.

第一次来这个版块,献丑了.

welcome come here frequently!