ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2433|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-12-9

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-3-24 13:38:00 | 只看该作者

大全-12-9

9.     In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at
Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants.
Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

The argument above is based on which of
the following assumptions about these job applicants?

(A) All of the
applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(B) All of the
applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(C) None of the
applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.

(D) None of the
applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco.(C)

(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or
Radeco.


答案C,这个没异议,但是我觉得B也可以啊,

这里的关键是集合问题

设A=得到E工作

设B=得到R工作

选项C是说没人同时得到两个工作,原题说每个公司只给了一半人offer

而B的意思是“所有的人,要不得到E工作,要不得到R的工作”,同样也是互斥事件,为何不可?


沙发
发表于 2004-3-24 19:15:00 | 只看该作者
being offered a job is different from accepting a job.
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-3-26 16:43:00 | 只看该作者
恍然大悟!
地板
发表于 2009-11-2 19:03:19 | 只看该作者
C答案理解了, 可是为什么D不对呢?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-9-27 04:07
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部