gwd-12-11 偶碰到的一道难题

rpch2004

以下是引用jesuisdesole在2008-5-19 21:33:00的发言：

非常感谢!

jesuisdesole，看你的总结贴很方便，谢谢

v_zhang7979

以下是引用tomwalkson在2006-8-3 22:16:00的发言：

前面仔细看了大家的讨论，自己也斗争了很久，但是忽然之间发现了一些大家都没有注意的细节，可能这些细节能够说明本题的答案应该是B, 或者说B虽然不那么舒服，但是唯一可行的答案。

我们再认真读一遍原题

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

文中划线的部分对解题是有关键性意义的。现在的argument是对刚刚实行的一项legal requirement在未来的效果的一个预测，而在此之前发生的事情是无法被用来检验或者支持这个预测的（这不就是刻舟求剑的道理吗）

再来看选项，

1. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.
     
2. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
     
3. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.
     
4. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

5. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

A C D E全部是说之前的recession导致的后果或者逻辑结果是怎样的，但是这跟刚刚实行的legal requirement是没有关系的，是其他什么别的原因造成的（不管是师生比例也好，教师人数也罢，前面的讨论尽是围绕这些绕圈子了，ets可真阴险啊），当然不能说他们能够有效支持对这个legal requirement的作用的预测。不知道大家觉得这个角度来理解是否正确。如果说考点的话我想也许是考对题干的精确理解吧。

这个思路对现实考试判断确实是好方法.

v_zhang7979

个人认为，本题强调的是学生/老师的比例如何变化，B中说有25%左右的学生在经济好时读私立学校，要交很多费用，那么至少可以知道当经济不好时可能会有学生转回公立学校，学生/老师比例有可能增大，而防止该比例超过限制，公立学校将雇佣更多的老师以保证比例稳定。注意这些过程都是可能，但只要有可能，就是加强，加强题并不要求“一定”的含义。

stanzafu

我怎么感觉坛子里的这些NN们做题的思路都不是正常人的思维呢？很多用常识看起来很有道理的选项，跑到这里一看就是错的～～！！呜呜，我要怎么才能把思路训练成更接近牛牛们的思路呢？尽管比较变态，但是为了考试也只好拼了！！～

leo-liu

支持选B

这道题很绕，但也只能选B

carolcai

B

peter6peter6

我是一个菜鸟，第一次发贴，请见笑．

我认为A是正确的．我最近在看陈向东的逻辑．按照他的方法，这个是＂B,A"推理型题目中为了一个目的，提出一个方法或建议类型，其中一个方法是A有效或有意义．

读题，找论点，论据．

目的B：probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools

方法A：a legal requirement （１.free of charge education,  2.current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.）

选项A中的ratio higher符合是A有效的原则，因为不会在更高了．这是从纯粹的做题技巧上看．如果是实际分析来看，现在比recession的ratio还高，说明现在老师数量相对较少．如果以后recession，ratio只能不变或变小，说明老师数量应该相对教多，这样才probably not，注意不是绝对不会，所以也不能太较真说学生数量可能减少，因为这里并没有讨论学生数量的问题．

B选项中的２５％，以及私立学校是题干中没有提到的，属于无关的干扰选项．

C中的２０％higher是跟上次recession之前比，很难进行有效推断．

D,E中都出现题干中为涉及的无关概念．

naiwu

Let me try this~~:

A.    The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.   

Wrong! The truth is that the higher the current student-teacher ratio is, the smaller the future teaching jobs demand will be. For illustration, imagine what if the current student-teacher ratio is far lower than it was during a typical economic recession: the government-funded schools will have to hire more teachers, thus increasing the availability of teaching jobs, to maintain the low student-teacher ratio. So this circumstance does no favor to the argument, rather well compromises it.
                        

B.    During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.
      

Right on the point! During economic recession, those who used to attend privately funded schools have to transfer to public schools, making government-funded schools seek more teachers.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-18 22:54:56编辑过]

夜凉如水

以下是引用sammaijgd在2005-9-11 17:08:00的发言：

我做的时候选C,后来细想下,在三个最后争议选项中A B C还是选择B

原文结论是"However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools."

选项A只说明现在S-T的比例比萧条时候高,没有任何继续说明的意思

选项C 比较老师数量是现在与萧条前两个时间上的比较,与萧条根本没有关系,谁也不知道萧条的时候怎么样,所以无关

选项B 说的是一个学生的动态变化,在经济好的时候,当然需要一个假使萧条的时候学生有可能回到公立学校,存在这个可能,就导致在萧条的时候老师与学生的比例发生,这足够假设了，不必完全考虑其充分性,在与A C相比完全有strengthens的味道.

PS,我认为破题一道,没有逻辑题应有思辩味道,纯属在弄文字游戏

MinyiSu888

如果照上面选Ｂ的逻辑来看，如果学生不去私立读了，去公立读，那么老师的需求会增加，但是私立学校对的老师的需求也会减少啊，一增一减，怎么可能是Ｂ呢？