求救。这道逻辑怎么都看不懂。GWD6-Q38

vivian8389

GWD6-Q38:
Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere.In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?
A.None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
B.It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.
C.Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.
D.Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.
E.None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.
这道题没思路，主要是逻辑链不清楚，很纠结，请大牛指点

steve_chem

是e吧，对选项取非，如果7个小公司中有几个公司的产品符合政府管制以后的标准，那么也不可能只剩下三家大公司了

dengts

When facing CR problems,you should always pay attention to the reasoning of the stimulus and always look for the way the author arrived the conclusion.When you read this problem,you may wonder why must the seven small businesses convert their production to a new set of manufacturing specification?Yes,this is a gap,and you need to eliminate it.As a result,E is correct.

vivian8389

还是有些不明不白，大牛们可否帮着分析一下逻辑链阿。我的逻辑实在汗颜。。。。。。

anshanada

政府推出新的生产规范+小公司没钱改装生产线→小公司就做不成这单生意了（即：只剩下3家大公司做这单生意）原文结论之所以排除3家小公司都不会继续这单生意，潜在假设就是三家小公司原来的型号就和新规定的不一样。

木易爱青

再问一下，B为什么不对呢？小公司regulate的花费比大公司多的话不也能削弱麽？

sdcar2010

E is right.

What the small companies could not afford is the cost of converting their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications.  It has nothing to do with what their current manufacturing specifications are. Before the announcement of the final manufacturing specifications, no one knows for sure if the current specifications used by the small companies meet the standard.

B is irrelevant to the argument since we do NOT know if small companies NEED to convert.

From the stimulus, the author PRESUMED that the small companies have to convert their production line in order to meet the new manufacturing specification.  That's why the author concluded that only the big companies can survive.  What if the small companies have already met the new manufacture specification with their current production line?  This will obliviate the need for such costly conversion for the small companies.

木易爱青

E is right.

What the small companies could not afford is the cost of converting their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications.  It has nothing to do with what their current manufacturing specifications are. Before the announcement of the final manufacturing specifications, no one knows for sure if the current specifications used by the small companies meet the standard.

B is irrelevant to the argument since we do NOT know if small companies NEED to convert.

From the stimulus, the author PRESUMED that the small companies have to convert their production line in order to meet the new manufacturing specification.  That's why the author concluded that only the big companies can survive.  What if the small companies have already met the new manufacture specification with their current production line?  This will obliviate the need for such costly conversion for the small companies.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/5/29 22:02:06)

thx~I get the point~~

fangsigaoa

E is right.

What the small companies could not afford is the cost of converting their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications.  It has nothing to do with what their current manufacturing specifications are. Before the announcement of the final manufacturing specifications, no one knows for sure if the current specifications used by the small companies meet the standard.

B is irrelevant to the argument since we do NOT know if small companies NEED to convert.

From the stimulus, the author PRESUMED that the small companies have to convert their production line in order to meet the new manufacturing specification.  That's why the author concluded that only the big companies can survive.  What if the small companies have already met the new manufacture specification with their current production line?  This will obliviate the need for such costly conversion for the small companies.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/5/29 22:02:06)

牛牛~~一开始我选了A，觉得很确定（很像答案的感觉）因为把A取非，可以削弱

only thethree large companies will be able to remain in business.

虽然后面看E确实对。
我感觉我对文章强调的重点抓不准呐~~A为什么不可以呢~~~

sdcar2010

Main conclusion: If the governmnet regulates the industry, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

A) None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does NOT regulate the manufacture of the product.

If you negate A, you have:
SOME of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does NOT regulate the manufacture of the product.
If this is true, what would happen to the main conclusion of the argument? Nothing. Because after negation, the trigger of negated A is: if the government does NOT regulate the manufacture of the product. And the trigger for the main conclusion is: If the governmnet regulates the industry. No trigger, no effect in formal logic. A is not necessary.