求nn帮忙理解下这题,答案并不能让人信服,求反驳

powers

Let's clear it out. You think the gap here is "effectiveness". And you do not care "what degree the effectiveness is", so it makes choice D out directly, because the point D focuses on is "the degree of effectiveness". Please pointing out if there is anything wrong at this part.

I do think the gap here is the "effectiveness" that's why you have to mention how effective it is. that's what D istalking about.
My" I don't care how effective it is" was ONLY replying your "this equipment perhaps is not THE most effective one, tanks or guns can do more dmg", it's a 题外话has nothing to do w/ the question.
My point is you GOTTA mention "effectiveness" here, in order to make it work, but whether is it the most or not is out the scope. It's pointless to argue that.
As I said 大米麻油 can be widely available, but can they change anything at all? Clearly NO. why? Because they are not useful, unless you can establish an argument like D to point out the effectiveness of 大米麻油. Simply by answering how you would make it happen, as B does, won't make it work. I'd ask you "SO WHAT? would they work at all? I don't think they will. You wish!" because here our assumptions are different. yours is 大米麻油 is effective, mine is they are not.

"In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country"  the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S",  and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective."
I dont get it here. Why is it still based on the equipment is effective?

As I said above, your assumption of this argument is based on it's effectiveness. Let's put it this way, will you say that if you don't believe (assume) this is gonna be useful? If your answer is NO, then your assumption MUST BE effectiveness is key point. Without that assumption, any company 大米厂麻油厂,etc., can argue any of there products SHOULD NOT BE BANNED, because if they are wildly available they will destroy S government.

Once available -> works(effective)  Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue".                                    

once available -> works(HOW DO I KNOW? ) the question itself didn't mention nor B.

"how effective" is included in "available issue" Bingo! I don't see it literally. Any one see it?  That's meaning underlying it, something that's called assumption.

Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available?  That's why choice B is the assumption.

Will they be available? How you will make them available? It's the question of future. I don't care. It has nothing to do with how I am establishing my argument at this very moment. At this moment all I care is if I'm being a crazy guy fantasying something unrealistic, or being a reasonable man arguing something valid.

powers

Use negation method since this is a necessary assumption question.

If you negate B, you have: The telecommunication equipment that would be imported into S, if the exemption were to be granted, would be available solely to top development officials in S. If so, when the exemption is granted, ordinary people won't get access to cell phones. The country would still be repressive. Thus, the whole argument falls apart. B is the correct answer.                                    

It's like I have an equation: A=>B, you say it's not correct only because somehow A isn't achievable, so A=/=>b. I think that's a weak argument.
The only correct way to demonstrate is by showing A needs something else to get to B, A can not get to B by itself! so anther factor, another prerequisite, needs to be inserted. A+C=>B

Let's see what if you negate D, you would get "telecommunication equipment is not the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government." then, the manufacturer has no ground to argue not get banned.  This way shows the the absence of "effectiveness", namely C,  causes A+C=>B fail, because A can not achieve B alone. C is the GAP here.

powers

A=>B

I agree if you can't have A then you'd never get to B, but that's only the consequence of not having A.

can you reject the logic truth of this deductive reasoning by discussing the existence of A? That would be ridiculous...

The way to refute A=>B is to show A needs C=>B. The truth is establish, the false is revealed, whether you have A or C has nothing to do with the logic truth.

Einstein doesn't care if human being can reach the speed of light. but his theory is not wrong, or maybe it is wrong, who knows, "/shrug", but I DO know at least I can't refute his theory by stating nothing can reach the speed of light  

sdcar2010

A necessary assumption for an arugment might not be sufficient enough to enable the same argument.

powers

A necessary assumption for an arugment might not be sufficient enough to enable the same argument.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/3 11:28:57)

interesting.

powers

虽然理由不能让人信服,起码了解了一些GMAC的手法.应试呗

littlexian

Let's clear it out. You think the gap here is "effectiveness". And you do not care "what degree the effectiveness is", so it makes choice D out directly, because the point D focuses on is "the degree of effectiveness". Please pointing out if there is anything wrong at this part.

I do think the gap here is the "effectiveness" that's why you have to mention how effective it is. that's what D istalking about.
My" I don't care how effective it is" was ONLY replying your "this equipment perhaps is not THE most effective one, tanks or guns can do more dmg", it's a 题外话has nothing to do w/ the question.
My point is you GOTTA mention "effectiveness" here, in order to make it work, but whether is it the most or not is out the scope. It's pointless to argue that.
As I said 大米麻油 can be widely available, but can they change anything at all? Clearly NO. why? Because they are not useful, unless you can establish an argument like D to point out the effectiveness of 大米麻油. Simply by answering how you would make it happen, as B does, won't make it work. I'd ask you "SO WHAT? would they work at all? I don't think they will. You wish!" because here our assumptions are different. yours is 大米麻油 is effective, mine is they are not.

"In order to make it " widely available to the population of that country"  the manufactures will not sell them "solely to top development officials in S",  and then by achieving this, they can argue that "their exports of their products should be exempted from the ban", still based on the assumption that telecommunication equipment is effective."
I dont get it here. Why is it still based on the equipment is effective?

As I said above, your assumption of this argument is based on it's effectiveness. Let's put it this way, will you say that if you don't believe (assume) this is gonna be useful? If your answer is NO, then your assumption MUST BE effectiveness is key point. Without that assumption, any company 大米厂麻油厂,etc., can argue any of there products SHOULD NOT BE BANNED, because if they are wildly available they will destroy S government.

Once available -> works(effective)  Therefore, "how effective" is included in "available issue".                                    

once available -> works(HOW DO I KNOW? ) the question itself didn't mention nor B.

"how effective" is included in "available issue" Bingo! I don't see it literally. Any one see it?  That's meaning underlying it, something that's called assumption.

Once the products are available to people, they are effective. Will they available?  That's why choice B is the assumption.

Will they be available? How you will make them available? It's the question of future. I don't care. It has nothing to do with how I am establishing my argument at this very moment. At this moment all I care is if I'm being a crazy guy fantasying something unrealistic, or being a reasonable man arguing something valid.

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/3 10:09:31)

"My point is you GOTTA mention "effectiveness" here, in order to make it work, but whether is it the most or not is out the scope. It's pointless to argue that."

"(D) Of all exports that could be sent to Country S, telecommunication equipment would be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose that country’s repressive government." Tell me here that the choice D IS NOT ABOUT the effective level.  

"on the ground that it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." It is the most important part of the whole passage, please read it again.

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive"   Please translate this into Chinese and rethink about the meaning of this sentence.

"once available -> works(HOW DO I KNOW? ) the question itself didn't mention nor B".  Read, please.

"Will they be available? How you will make them available? It's the question of future. I don't care" The whole "I don't care" just clearly says you miss the key point of this passage. You misunderstand it.

"SO WHAT? would they work at all? I don't think they will. You wish!", Yes, you definitely can WEAKEN the companies' argument by that. In other words, let me say it again, Choice D is more a way to strengthen the argument.

A point to strengthen an argument, it makes the argument more convincing.  <<-- this is where you are talking about all the time.

A point to be an assumption of an argument, it links the premise and the conclusion and makes the whole argument works. NOTE!!!! the "works" here has nothing to do with the result of the argument( true or false, able to convince people or not), the argument works so IT CAN BECOME AN ARGUMENT, NOT IT WILL BECOME A TRUTH. sdcar2010 already have an example above.

You may wanna do some research about premise, assumption and conclusion, and how these three form an argument.

powers

wow, easy...don't get mad, I'm very slow

effectiveness 是必要条件,绝不是什么锦上添花的strengthen. 诚然必要条件必然strengthen,但不是所有strengthen都是必要条件.

D有2层含义,不光光是谈degree:1)是effective, 2)是不仅是effective而且还是most的, 所以不能只看见2)而看不见1) .我的意思是我只需要1)这个条件就够了,当然有2)则更好,也是你说的strengthen,2)就是所谓的锦上添花的东西,多多益善,恨不得有3有4呢.但是不管后面还有几千几万条,第一条是绝对不能少的,就是effective.

once...翻译成中文就是只要就,只要成立即怎么怎么样...
可是这个题目本来就已经是告诉你A=>B了, B)选项无非就是重复了一遍,只要有A=>B,只要没A就=/=>B,而已.

也就是我上面说的

It's like I have an equation: A=>B, you say it's not correct only because somehow A isn't achievable, so A=/=>b. I think that's a weak argument.
The only correct way to demonstrate is by showing A needs something else to get to B, A can not get to B by itself! so anther factor, another prerequisite, needs to be inserted. A+C=>B

powers

"It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country." Let's put it in this way -> "When telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive" Again, change it a bit -> "Once telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country, it is impossible for a country to remain repressive"  

B无非就是把:
It is impossible for a country to remain repressive WHEN telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.
改成
It is impossible for a country to remain repressive ONCE telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.

就变成assumption了? 你又把我绕进去了

如果是这样的话我真理解不了,我死记吧....

littlexian

wow, easy...don't get mad, I'm very slow

effectiveness 是必要条件,绝不是什么锦上添花的strengthen. 诚然必要条件必然strengthen,但不是所有strengthen都是必要条件.

D有2层含义,不光光是谈degree:1)是effective, 2)是不仅是effective而且还是most的, 所以不能只看见2)而看不见1) .我的意思是我只需要1)这个条件就够了,当然有2)则更好,也是你说的strengthen,2)就是所谓的锦上添花的东西,多多益善,恨不得有3有4呢.但是不管后面还有几千几万条,第一条是绝对不能少的,就是effective.

once...翻译成中文就是只要就,只要成立即怎么怎么样...
可是这个题目本来就已经是告诉你A=>B了, B)选项无非就是重复了一遍,只要有A=>B,只要没A就=/=>B,而已.

也就是我上面说的

It's like I have an equation: A=>B, you say it's not correct only because somehow A isn't achievable, so A=/=>b. I think that's a weak argument.
The only correct way to demonstrate is by showing A needs something else to get to B, A can not get to B by itself! so anther factor, another prerequisite, needs to be inserted. A+C=>B

-- by 会员 powers (2011/4/3 14:12:39)

Oh~ I'm not mad, just try to use clear way to cut through the problem here.

I understand what you are saying. Effective could be an assumption in a similar question, however, not in this one.
Let's say, if the passage is-> "It is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is used." so "telecommunication equipment should be exempted from the ban" Then, the assumption could be effective issue.

However, the point here is "when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country", then the assumption becomes something like choice B.  That 's why I repeated "read agian please", without this sentence, the answer could be really different.

Just as I said before, distinguish premise, assumption and conlusion first then do the problem really isnt my type, so I can not use this way to explain the problem here. However, I believe understanding how assumption works will really help to clear the problem here. That's why I said you may need to do some research on it.

Sorry for letting you feel I'm mad. : (