【求助牛牛们】OG-115

alexshihj

很奇怪这道题以前没有被讨论过。希望得到牛牛们的指点！

Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?

(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers..
        

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.

(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.

(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.

(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.

OG解释：

If tobacco advertising were the only factor that affected teenage smoking, there would be a difference in the prevalence of smoking between countries that ban such advertising and those that do not. According to the passage, there is no difference, so tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor. Therefore, choice A is the best answer.

我认为A不对:

"有人认为advertising --> teenagers smoking ;however, Norway的例子：ban the advertising--> no difference". 

从这个逻辑里，我们不能得到advertising是否对smoking造成影响的判断，而A选项却肯定了advertising的作用。

我认为C选项更符合原文的的direct reasoning.

望牛人指点 谢谢！

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-17 15:15:38编辑过]

alexshihj

自己顶，有牛牛出来指点一下吗？

谢谢！

crazyfight

C has nothing to do with teen-ager smokers which r the subject of the argument, while the logic of A tells there are other factors not only advertising affect teen-ager smokers. Therefore, people can easily conclude A from above infomation, A is the best answer.

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-17 15:24:57编辑过]

alexshihj

谢谢楼上。C is 1. out of scope  2.如果没有广告的禁令，更多挪威的年轻人会吸烟

admittedly, C有问题。 但A的问题我觉得更加严重。

C maybe true, but A must be false.

因为我认为全文没有一句话肯定过A的作用，第一句话many people argue应该是open to discussion的。

比如我改写这道题：

很多人说,上CD会鼓励更多年轻人吸烟。但是在Norway，政府禁止年轻人上CD，但那里吸烟的人不比其他地方的年轻人少。

A：上CD不是导致年轻人吸烟的唯一原因。

C:  禁止人们上CD不会减少吸烟的人的数量。

是不是觉得A比C更加rediculous呢？当然我的assumption 是第一句话open 2 discussion

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-17 15:45:47编辑过]

alohabrian

其实从原文的STATEMENT来看。可以推导出两个结论。

1. Tabacco Ad 完全与 青少年吸烟的情况 无关, 那么必然有其他的相关 因素 导致 青少年吸烟。

2. Tabacco Ad 与 青少年吸烟有关。但是影响甚微。还有其他的 重要的 因素 导致 青少年吸烟。

事实是，唯一合理的，只有这两个推论。 ETS把  第二个合理的推论写给你看。

抽象的来说。Factor A和 Result B, 当把A去掉以后，result B不改变。能推出的也是两个:

1.Factor A is a irrelavant factor.Therefore, there must be another factor that cause the result B

2.Factor A influece the result B but is not enough important to change B, so there must be another factor that cause result B.
  (This equals to STATEMENT in CHOICE A)

A选项是 合理 推论的子集 所以 也是正确的。

C属于严重OUT OF SCOPE，原文说：青少年吸烟量没因为Banning Tabbaco Ad而改变，无法推出 香烟的全民消费量不改变。 


PS:如果是问答题，你写了第二个可能，那么回答不完整，现在是选择题，so choose the best one.

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-17 20:45:24编辑过]

alexshihj

谢谢!