[讨论]狒狒逻辑的一道题。。-->aeoluseros转移

cocoamocha

21. Historian: We can learn about the medical history of individuals through chemical analysis of their hair. It is likely, for example, that Isaac Newton’s psychological problems were due to mercury poisoning; traces of mercury were found in his hair. Analysis is now being done on a lock of Beethoven’s hair. Although no convincing argument has shown that Beethoven ever had a venereal disease, some people hypothesize that venereal disease caused his deafness. Since mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease, if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian’s argument depends?

(A) None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

(B) Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.

(C) Mercury is an effective treatment for venereal disease.

(D) Mercury poisoning can cause deafness in people with venereal disease.

(E) Beethoven suffered from psychological problems of the same severity as Newton’s.

答案为B

There should be 2 assumptions to support the hypothesis. The 1st assumption of the author is that only venereal disease will be treated by mercury in Beethoven’s time. The 2nd assumption is only some people in Beethoven's time will ingest mercury, if all people ingest mercury, the evidence is not useful. So, some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury. The answer should be B.

答案的解释看不懂，牛牛的解释太深奥了，当然也是因为自己太愚钝了。。555。。。。

 

 

 

 

不管怎么样，说说我的解题思路，望路过的牛牛们，能指教一下，说说我的思路到底是哪里出问题了，拜谢了！！！！

 

 

看了题目最后一句，if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, we can conclude that this hypothesis is correct.

觉得因果间没有什么太明确的关系，觉得取非应该是最节省时间的方法（对hypothesis有weaken的就是对的）。。

 

 

hypothesis'vew:  1) venereal disease caused his deafness; 2) mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease

 

总的来说，a,c,d,e都很好排除了（a为无关选项，c里面多了一个effective,错，原文没讨论那么远，d混淆视听，cause deafness 是venereal disease，整个顺序都乱套了 ，e错误比较，题目没涉及）

可是郁闷的是我觉得b也不对 （汗如雨下啊。。）

 

觉得B取非，并没有weaken到hypothesis,最多只能算是与hypothesis比较一致，support。。

 

 

请走过路过的xdjm，把自己的正确解题思路留下，也让我有机会学习进步一下。。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-30 22:57:34编辑过]

cocoamocha

23. On a certain day, nine scheduled flights on Swift Airlines were canceled. Ordinarily, a cancellation is due to mechanical problems with the airplane scheduled for a certain flight. However, since it is unlikely that Swift would have the mechanical problems with more than one or two scheduled flights on a single day, some of the nine cancellations were probably due to something else.

(A) More than one or two airplanes were scheduled for the nine canceled flights.

(B) Swift Airlines has fewer mechanical problems than do other airlines of the same size.

(C) Each of the canceled flights would have been longer than the average flight on Swift Airlines.

(D) Swift Airlines had never before canceled more than one or two scheduled flights on a single day.

(E) All of the airplanes scheduled for the canceled flights are based at the same airport.

还有一道assumption的题，看来这类题还没弄通啊。。。

大家一起看看吧。。

答案为a,说是取非weaken到结论了，反而是support，说明“mechanical problems with more than one or two scheduled flights on a single day“视unlikely发生的，也就支持了可能是其他原因。。。

我觉得结论是：some of the nine cancellations were probably due to something else.

个人觉得d取非，weaken到结论了，说明原文unlikely的部分是可能的，也就削弱了，可能没有其他原因，就是机械故障而以

请各位指出我的分析错误，谢谢了！！！！

AlienX

umm....LZ好像貼錯地方...=P
B的取非:some->no(ne): No people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.=>All people in Beethoven’s time DID ingest mercury.
如果所有人in Beethoven's time都ingested mercury, 那麼有mercury在Beethoven的hair上沒有什麼特別, 所以不能証他有venereal disease

cocoamocha

咦？真的贴错位置了。。。做题做晕了。。有办法换去对的地方吗？。。。。

这位NN，你能不能讲的细一点。

“B的取非:some->no(ne): No people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury.=>All people in Beethoven’s time DID ingest mercury。”

你说的意思是Some people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury，这句话的取非是No people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest mercury？

我还以为b的取非应该是Some people in Beethoven’s time did ingest mercury咧，（照着墙再擂一下。。哎哟！）

还想再问一下，hypothesis'view 是什么？我有没有分析对？

你要是能随便帮我把下一题也看看，那就太太感谢了！

AlienX

只有版主有power to move the thread =P

是, Some people in Beethoven’s
time did not ingest mercury，这句话的取非是No people in Beethoven’s time did
not ingest mercury, 而No people in Beethoven’s time did not ingest
mercury可以rewritten to: All people in Beethoven’s time DID ingest
mercury

好像"...some...not..."都是取非some,
OG10#195上的取非"...some...not..."也是取非some...可是我沒有好好的總結,
可能妳要問一下NN怎去取非"...some...not...".  有定案, 記得通知一下=)

LZ的第二題, 我不會做; 找了一下, 好像題是錯的...正確的題好像是:
On
a certain day, nine scheduled flights on Swift Airlines were canceled.
Ordinarily, a cancellation is due to mechanical problems with the
airplane scheduled for a certain flight. However, since it is unlikely
that Swift would have the mechanical problems with more than one or two airplanes on a single day, some of the nine cancellations were probably due to something else.
如果根據LZ的題目, 我也會pick D.
如果根據我posted的題目, 我會pick A.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-31 4:51:05编辑过]

AlienX

hmm...想了一下"some...not..."的取非只能是"none...not...", 不一定是"some...do..."
來一個比較simple的example:
some people do NOT go to the theater.
如果取非是"some...do...", 那麼取非之後就是some people go to the theater.
如果100個人有10個去theather, 那我們可以說some people go to the theater, 也可以說 some people do NOT go to the theater.
等於說有時候some...not...會等於some...do..., 所以some...do...不一定會是some...not...的取非
可是"none...not..."永遠是"some...not..."的取非, 用同一個example, 取非後會是no people goes to the theater.
no people does not go to the theater(or ALL people go to the theater)永遠不等於some people do NOT go to the theater.
跟公司一個Stanford PhD討論過, 應該是對的...

286的幸福观

1. all----not all/some---none/always----not always/sometimes----never/everywhere---not everywhere/somewhere---nowhere/only one, exactly one---none, more than one/at least one, some---none

2.对于选项为条件句，将必要条件取非。

3.直接将谓语肯定变否定

LAYER NN的取非准则

建议LZ不要太执着于取非，这只是一个求证答案的方法，不是挑选答案的好方法，很容易出现逻辑盲点。

如some...not取非的问题。some...do本身就是some...not的另一种说法，而不是反面。举个极端些的例子，世界上只有两种颜色，白色和非白色，有一些东西是白色，当然另外一些是非白色了，如果要否定这个关系，只有一种可能，就是所有东西都是白色。显而易见了，some...do取非是all...do,some..not取非是all...not.

如果要问什么时候才能谓语取非，这个就太难了……具体情况气体分析……

最简单的概括之，一个圆全部都是白色，那么取非它一定非白色，不要再去思考非白色包括什么颜色了，这是我们和西方人思维方式的区别，取非是对我们不利的方式……

AlienX

7th floor...好像你搞混了
some...do...的取非是none...do...不是all...do...
some...not....的取非是none...not...不是all...not...

286的幸福观

额……sorry,当作病例吧

世界上只有两种颜色，白色和非白色，有一些东西是白色，当然另外一些是非白色了，取非应当是排除“有一些东西是白色”的可能，只有所有东西都是非白色才可以……即是some...do...是all...not...（none...do...）……海涵海涵

cocoamocha

非常谢谢二位，使我对some..not的取非有了较深的理解。不过想问问我对hypothesis'view 有没有分析对？

hypothesis'vew:  1) venereal disease caused his deafness; 2) mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven’s time to treat venereal disease

希望多多指教！

还有7楼说“不要太执着于取非，这只是一个求证答案的方法，不是挑选答案的好方法，很容易出现逻辑盲点。”

请问你在做assumption的时候，有什么高招啊？想听一听，看对我有没有启发！

谢谢！

同时请大家帮我看看第二题啊！！

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-1-1 15:41:42编辑过]