“GMAT逻辑解题方法 by lawyer ”一文的疑惑

sdcar2010

LS, when we say the argument still holds, you have to look at the argument in the whole, not just one aspect thereof.

When you negate A, as you did correctly, you get "Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not." And this statement is consistent with one of the premise of the argument, therefore the argument still holds IF you follow the logic chain of the author because that's what the author claims! Whether or not the author's conclusion is right or wrong is not our concern for the assumption-type question. We have to treat the author's statements as correct. Since when you negate A, you do not weaken or refute the author's argument, the argument still holds.

nightingale

LS, when we say the argument still holds, you have to look at the argument in the whole, not just one aspect thereof.

When you negate A, as you did correctly, you get "Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not." And this statement is consistent with one of the premise of the argument, therefore the argument still holds IF you follow the logic chain of the author because that's what the author claims! Whether or not the author's conclusion is right or wrong is not our concern for the assumption-type question. We have to treat the author's statements as correct. Since when you negate A, you do not weaken or refute the author's argument, the argument still holds.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/3/5 21:01:45)

LS, Thanks for your explanation, but I am afraid I cannot agree.
To avoid duplicate discussion, pls see #5 here:
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-524523-1-1.html

Thank you.

kirajohn

及时雨！

MissUindeed

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-3-4 11:41
For example, OG12-71Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now r ...

sdcar2010，么么哒，说得真好～