他因和有关无关信息如何区分？

joyjojo821

很多NN都说做逻辑题可以用信息有关无关来排除，可是如果有些题目，是因为有别的原因导致结果不正确，如果用有关无关这种判断方法就不正确了，因为他因肯定是原来题目中没有提到过的。这两种情况该如何区别呢？

比如下面的例子，答案是C，可是我觉得E也可以解释啊，说明是有别的原因。
GWD30-Q19:
Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.


Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

1. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
   
2. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
   
3. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
   
4. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
   
5. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.
   谁能帮我解答一下啊？谢谢啦！
   
   
   

aary431

我也觉得好像是E啊~同问

aary431

是不是没提到safety-sensitive的原因啊？惑、

joyjojo821

我是一直搞不清楚这两种题型有什么区别，最好有NN能点拨一下而不是只针对这道题，谢谢啦~

joyjojo821

ShaneLiu

Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

这个选项中的some具体是多少？这个量的定义很模糊，所以不能说明问题。假设总共有100起事故，如果有10起事是由设备导致的，我也可以说some accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error. 但是，其实更多的（90起）事故是还是人为导致的。所以无法对原文结论构成削弱。

joyjojo821

谢谢楼上的解释！

野原新之助

5楼的解答不对，会吃药的。全文的范围是all，选项就不能用some来判断。比如：人们喜欢吃饭，所以会大便。选项说：有些人喜欢吃大便。当然驳斥。我们只说驳斥，没说100%驳倒。原文说的前提是人吃饭，但是有人质疑说不是所有的人都吃饭的。这不是在驳斥你理论的基础不正确嘛。原文如果说：大部分人喜欢吃饭，选项说：一些人喜欢吃大便。则5楼的解答可以应用。OK。E不是错在some上，E也不是他音驳斥，但是解释起来比较复杂。就提示一点：原文只说工业事故由喝酒引起的比较多，并没有说是最多的most。所以原文是允许有比喝酒更严重的原因引起工业事故。所以E根本没有驳斥。其他的自己悟吧。C正确时因为他驳斥的是前提。

gracezz

B为啥不行？虽然知道C肯定是对的。。

B说many error不是那些sensitive工作带来的，那把不把喝酒的人放那都没啥影响啊？是错在many上吗？考试时候碰见我就得纠结了

bonnie0715

B为啥不行？虽然知道C肯定是对的。。

B说many error不是那些sensitive工作带来的，那把不把喝酒的人放那都没啥影响啊？是错在many上吗？考试时候碰见我就得纠结了

-- by 会员 gracezz (2010/5/26 21:16:44)

我跟你一样的选了B。不过我现在反反复复看了很多遍。觉得问题所在是第一句话的前提上。所以整段话的前提都是为了实现Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.这个目标。所以非安全敏感地带只能属于无关项了。
E也是一样，out of scope。

anyway,C也不是个什么好选项。假设他们确实hide了。但是并不影响他们的禁令。比如20个喝酒的。19个hide。不禁和禁还相差了一个人。总是对预防由好处的。而且题目问的是undermine the argument，而并非问的是if true, the company will not reach their goal。两者是不一样的。前者是需要整段话的逻辑。反正我觉得这个题愤懑