GWD3_Q32

pandaforever

注意那个already

pandaforever

牢记lawyer 说的：对于assumption将选项取非，则原文不成立

sdcar2010

牢记lawyer 说的：对于assumption将选项取非，则原文不成立

-- by 会员 pandaforever (2011/3/27 11:09:00)

Only for necessary assumption, negation method works.

For sufficient assumption, negation is not suitable.

jake1

分析选项中细节点的词很难在考场上操作。逻辑解题应该思考其本质的因果联系。
此题本质上就是说课程解释了since后的内容，那就找一个取非以后削弱解释的选项。c项能削弱课程的作用，而A项却加强了课程的作用。

Rin琳

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed. 是对于这个反效果的explanation而不是assumption
Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population. 无关选项
The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. Governor企图用不给于大学课程来威慑犯人，为了让整个plan有意义，排除了其他影响因素。
Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does. 无关选项
The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime. 无关选项

perain

同意C。感觉C选项中难就难在这个选项不是很好看懂。 要注意already和过去式包含的意思。

davidpan86

对此题有一点疑惑。
我觉得argument的前提是不能在监狱里受教育，结论是并不能减少犯罪率。（即政府不能完成他们的意图）
那么应该选A，即不接受教育不能减少犯罪。建立了前提到结论的逻辑桥梁
C选项应该是对应于以最后一句话作为结论的，即接受了教育的人出狱后会有更低的犯罪率。

不知道理解的是否正确，请NN们点拨

sdcar2010

对此题有一点疑惑。
我觉得argument的前提是不能在监狱里受教育，结论是并不能减少犯罪率。（即政府不能完成他们的意图）
那么应该选A，即不接受教育不能减少犯罪。建立了前提到结论的逻辑桥梁
C选项应该是对应于以最后一句话作为结论的，即接受了教育的人出狱后会有更低的犯罪率。

不知道理解的是否正确，请NN们点拨

-- by 会员 davidpan86 (2011/6/27 2:00:38)

You got it wrong. First, the main conclusion of the argument is:
this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal.
Here, this action = the government's denying inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses, not the inmates' "not being able to take college-level courses while in prison." When finding the main conclusion, pay attention to the SUBJECT of the conclusion. So A) is NOT the necessary assumption we need. In fact, A) strengthens the governor's case while undermining the claim of the author.

Second, necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate C), you get: The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses WERE already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. If so, these inmates are GOOD inmates to begin with, with or without the college-level course training. Therefore, the argument that allowing an inmate to take such courses in prison would decrease an inmate's chance of committing crimes after his or her release is false.

Thus, C) is the necessary assumption.

davidpan86

You got it wrong. First, the main conclusion of the argument is:
this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal.
Here, this action = the government's denying inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses, not the inmates' "not being able to take college-level courses while in prison." When finding the main conclusion, pay attention to the SUBJECT of the conclusion. So A) is the necessary assumption we need. In fact, A) strengthens the governor's case while undermining the claim of the author.

Second, necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate C), you get: The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses WERE already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. If so, these inmates are GOOD inmates to begin with, with or without the college-level course training. Therefore, the argument that allowing an inmate to take such courses in prison would decrease an inmate's chance of committing crimes after his or her release is false.

Thus, C) is the necessary assumption.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/27 3:33:52)

[/quote]so you mean A is not the necessary assumption?how does A strength the govenor's case?

sdcar2010

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

Not taking the course is unlikely to prevent an inmate from committing a crime he or she would have.

Fair enough. Let (uneducated) criminals remain as criminals. But we do not know what would happen if an inmate takes the course just by accepting A). This is the crux of the argument. We do not know what is likely to prevent an inmate from committing a crime again just by reading A). Therefore, A) does not necessarily be true for the argument to hold.