求助一道题：In an attempt to reduce the crime rate

晒个月亮吧

zhanguang07 发表于 2014-1-9 22:15
A is too absolute, it indicates that taking college-level courses is likely to deter anyone from a c ...

同意！               

1998JIN

zhanguang07 发表于 2014-1-9 22:15
A is too absolute, it indicates that taking college-level courses is likely to deter anyone from a c ...

多谢！看了好久的评论，就你说的我明白了，我原来是错在取反的时候把anyone给换成someone了。。。

Bensontuo

Spot the question type: necessary assumption

The core of the argument is that by attempting to reduce the crime rate, government would deny inmates the access they formerly had too college level courses, and those prisoners had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates, so, the action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal.

First flaw that we can spot will be that the argument presumes that the correlation could prove the causation, which is to say, the correlation offered must be 100% to support the conclusion, definitely, that's our necessary assumption.

So, with that hint in mind, let us dive into the answers.

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is " likely " to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have commited - SUPPORT !!! Not against the core of the argument after negating it.

B. Former inmates are " more " likely to commit crimes than are the members of the general population. - We are comparing the inmates with educations and the inmates without educations. out of scopes.

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college - level courses were " already " less likely than others inmates to commit crimes after being released - Which is to say, the correlation might not be that accurate, since there is the other factor to consider about the crimes rate. - Correct answer.

D. Subsequent behavior does not really relevant to the fact that you must commit the crimes.

E. Not relevant

abbylung

前提1：监狱条件苛刻
前提2：禁止犯人参加课程
前提3：参加课程的犯人出狱后不犯罪了
结论：禁止犯人参加课程不能降低犯罪率

思考：假如A是犯人，参加课程后不犯罪了，认为犯罪率就是降低了。但是如果A不参加课程也不会犯罪，犯罪率就没降低这么一说

A 去掉not，看能否削弱。参加课程不可能阻止人们远离犯罪。反驳原文了，错
B 去掉no，看能否削弱。以前的犯人更可能犯罪，比普通大众。不相关比较，错
C 去掉not，看能否削弱。现在chose选择参加课程的人以前were是更少可能犯罪，在出狱后。也就是说不参加课程，这些人也不会犯罪，那参不参加课程对犯罪率没有影响。直接削弱
D E明显错

Carol凡凡

要回答的关键问题是：是不是上课导致了出狱后犯罪率低？
所以要加强作者的argument，必有假设：不是只有未来犯罪率低的那些囚犯才会去上课。
如果该假设不成立，说明作者因果颠倒了，削弱了原论证。
所以C是正确答案。

王大可的罐头

abbylung 发表于 2020-3-29 21:59
前提1：监狱条件苛刻
前提2：禁止犯人参加课程
前提3：参加课程的犯人出狱后不犯罪了

取非是对主句的谓语动词取非，所以你这个A选项的翻译有点问题，应该是“不参加课程，也可能阻止犯罪”

firexxfire

山川河岛屿 发表于 2018-4-23 04:40
说说我对A的理解吧，造成那么多困惑的主要原因还是“取非”这一步出现了问题，not being able to take coll ...

同意！