GMAT 逻辑分析题 (25)

sdcar2010

LS, you are confused by the premise in a claim with a premise in an argument. The former is one component of one claim (sentence) only while the latter contains at least two claims (sentences). Ususally, I treat the former as either the sufficient condition or necessary conditon in a formal logic question.

pazzini10

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2010/12/10 5:06:36)

NN，还是没搞明白，请教一下，这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support；
我觉得和A是一样的啊？
E的逻辑反而是：结论：不离婚的 没有婚外情， 前提：有婚外情的，离婚了

麻烦解答一下，谢谢

sdcar2010

这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support

Wrong.

It should be: 这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support --> 不allow，前提是：不support --> 不allow.

Premise: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support = If no government support, then no one is allowed to pursue decmocracy.

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2010/12/10 5:06:36)

NN，还是没搞明白，请教一下，这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support；
我觉得和A是一样的啊？
E的逻辑反而是：结论：不离婚的 没有婚外情， 前提：有婚外情的，离婚了

麻烦解答一下，谢谢

-- by 会员 pazzini10 (2011/11/30 22:48:51)

zada2010

....晕了啊~~如果是前提和 结论都是  no supprot..no allow..那怎么选e？  如果不是。。那又为什么不选A呢？

子弹青春

E is right.

If you consider this from a prospective of proposition, you'll make it clear:

The rephrased version in the argument is actually unchanged.
In option E, the rephrased version is the converse-negative proposition.
Other options, they are all negative proposition.

echosangsang

这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support

Wrong.

It should be: 这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support --> 不allow，前提是：不support --> 不allow.

Premise: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support = If no government support, then no one is allowed to pursue decmocracy.



It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2010/12/10 5:06:36)





NN，还是没搞明白，请教一下，这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support；
我觉得和A是一样的啊？
E的逻辑反而是：结论：不离婚的 没有婚外情， 前提：有婚外情的，离婚了

麻烦解答一下，谢谢
-- by 会员 pazzini10 (2011/11/30 22:48:51)

还是没有看懂啊？！@如果是前提和 结论都是  no supprot..no allow..那怎么选e？  如果不是。。那又为什么不选A呢

echosangsang

这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support

Wrong.

It should be: 这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support --> 不allow，前提是：不support --> 不allow.

Premise: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support = If no government support, then no one is allowed to pursue decmocracy.

It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

(A) The notion that every student who has been supported by a Hope Scholarship will become a rising star is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No student is going to become a rising star without a Hope Scholarship.
(B) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have an extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who gets divorced has had an extramarital affair.
(C) The notion that every artist who is funded by a government grant will be famous is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No artist who is famous is so without a government fund.
(D) The notion that every athlete who is supported by a scholarship will be exceptional is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: No athlete without a scholarship support will be exceptional.
(E) The claim that any husband who is not divorced from his wife does not have extramarital affair is absurd, because if you rephrase the statement you will have: Every husband who has an extramarital affair gets divorced.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2010/12/10 5:06:36)

NN，还是没搞明白，请教一下，这道题中的逻辑是：结论：不support,不allow，前提是：不allow，不support；
我觉得和A是一样的啊？
E的逻辑反而是：结论：不离婚的 没有婚外情， 前提：有婚外情的，离婚了

麻烦解答一下，谢谢

-- by 会员 pazzini10 (2011/11/30 22:48:51)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/11/30 23:52:43)

还是没有看懂啊，如果是前提和 结论都是 no supprot..no allow..那怎么选e？ 如果不是。。那又为什么不选A呢

echosangsang

这题好晕啊。
我用every排除ACD
BE都用了any，然后题目是XXXX not support..not allow (support 前 allow 后) ---> rephrase: no one is allowed ...without support (allow 前 support 后)
B: husband not divorced...not have affair (divorced 前, affair 后) ----> rephrase: no one divorced...have affair... (divorced 前, affair 后)
E: husband not divorced...not have affair (divorced 前, affair 后) ----> rephrase: no one have affair ...divorced...(affair 前 , divorced 后) -----> 同 题目

可能是侥幸哈哈!

-- by 会员 rikihsu (2011/7/6 1:38:09)

这样考虑对么？？

sdcar2010

LS, you can first try to put choice A) into formal logic structures.  Then you will see the difference between A) and E).

xfatgg

什么叫用"every"排除??
用ANY就剩下BE呢？？这两个有什么不同吗？？
请教啊！！