ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild. The countries in which the tigers' habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting. Thus, if these countries can successfully enforce this legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

正确答案: E

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 7040|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD2-Q38 求助

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-1-5 00:17:42 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Q38:
Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.The countries in which the tigers’ habitats are located are currently debating joint legislation that would ban tiger hunting.Thus, if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation, the survival of tigers in the wild will be ensured.


The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument


  1. assumes without sufficient warrant that a ban on tiger hunting could be successfully enforced
  2. considers the effects of hunting on tigers without also considering the effects of hunting on other endangered animal species
  3. fails to take into account how often tiger hunters are unsuccessful in their attempts to kill tigers
  4. neglects to consider the results of governmental attempts in the past to limit tiger hunting
  5. takes the removal of an impediment to the tigers’ survival as a guarantee of their survival

    答案是E,我选得是A。能给我分析一下这个题吗?谢谢~~~

收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-1-5 00:30:42 | 只看该作者
The stimulus already says "if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation." Then (a) is not an assumption any more.  It is a premise.
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-1-5 10:35:28 | 只看该作者
I see,thanks~~~
地板
发表于 2011-7-11 08:39:35 | 只看该作者
The stimulus already says "if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation." Then (a) is not an assumption any more.  It is a premise.
-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/1/5 0:30:42)



Because of the word "if", I choose A. I thought "if" means without warrant........
5#
发表于 2011-7-11 10:45:12 | 只看该作者
If = on conditon that
6#
发表于 2011-7-11 16:42:20 | 只看该作者
我和楼主一样,一开始看了A选项我没有排除,无关选项法排除了BCD,E选项一开始没读懂,确实有俩单词不认识。但是我又读了一遍题目,题干中指出,导致tiger数量decrease的原因是hunting,为此颁布legislation禁止hunting来确保老虎的survival。简单的逻辑主干就是,hungting=》decrease,legislation=》no hunting。因此想削弱结论很简单,要么hunting不是导致decrease的唯一原因,要么legislation不能限制hunting从而导致老虎数量继续decrease。我认为#1说的有理,题干既然已经说到了“if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation”,那么就没有必要纠结这个法令究竟有没有很好的执行了。所以我最后果断排除了A,选了E。这是我的一点拙见,希望对你有帮助。
7#
发表于 2012-2-28 17:21:22 | 只看该作者
我跟LS的看法有点不一样,我感觉这道题好像不是weaken题,是找method of reasoning的flaw题呢~
首先开头第一句Unless tiger hunting decreases, tigers will soon be extinct in the wild.表明了hunting doesn't decrease,tigers就会灭绝,是former是必要条件。
第二句说明countries会enforce the legislation,所以hunting doesn't decrease。
第三句说hunting doesn't decrease,就一定tigers数不减少。hunting doesn't decrease就变成充分条件了。

A选项我一开始也选错了,但是现在看看A,觉得就是第一句话的paraphase。本来就是必要条件,并没有指出reasoning里面的flaw。


我和楼主一样,一开始看了A选项我没有排除,无关选项法排除了BCD,E选项一开始没读懂,确实有俩单词不认识。但是我又读了一遍题目,题干中指出,导致tiger数量decrease的原因是hunting,为此颁布legislation禁止hunting来确保老虎的survival。简单的逻辑主干就是,hungting=》decrease,legislation=》no hunting。因此想削弱结论很简单,要么hunting不是导致decrease的唯一原因,要么legislation不能限制hunting从而导致老虎数量继续decrease。我认为#1说的有理,题干既然已经说到了“if these countries can successfully enforcethis legislation”,那么就没有必要纠结这个法令究竟有没有很好的执行了。所以我最后果断排除了A,选了E。这是我的一点拙见,希望对你有帮助。
-- by 会员 gmyy123 (2011/7/11 16:42:20)

8#
发表于 2015-8-18 17:31:38 | 只看该作者
打个比方 ,if someone says:" IF you touch me again, I will punch you in your face."
we do not need to assume that you will ever touch me again [ or you will not touch me.]
If = 假定的条件,无论这个假定的条件是否 “ 会” 实现 我都无所谓,我关心的只是在这个假定的条件下 的结论。
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, 2024-11-23 11:31
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部