gwd-7-38

jackdua_cn

support E

Kevin4U

支持B

Journalist:  Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run.  However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

原文的逻辑是全部填写财务情况，是very likely的可能成为候选人之一。

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

1. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?


2. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?


3. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?


4. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?


5. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?

YES 明显加强原文推导

NO 削弱原文的推导

总之，B就是个评价性问题。

steveyangxt

以下是引用mindfree在2004-7-16 3:00:00的发言：

Since you mentioned required condition and sufficient condition, we start there. Filing is apparently a sufficient condition based on the question. Answer to B will help find out whether it is also a required condition. However, whether it is required is not relevant. Just make up an example:

Tom bought flight ticket from Baffalo to NYC. We think he is going to NYC. However, buying flight ticket is not a required condition. He can buy train ticket or just get a rental car. It is a sufficient condition but adequate to evaluate whether he is going. Whether it is required does not lend any help to this evaluation.

言之有理， b中only 是祸根阿

kathy_yu

正确答案要能二面回答。

我选Ｅ。回答ＹＥＳ＝＝〉削弱；回答ＮＯ＝＝〉支持。

B错！ 如果submitting a list of holdings是the only way ＝＝〉支持；如果submitting a list of holdings不是the only way ＝＝〉他可以通过其它途径　（不是削弱）。

zhoujian

同意E

B错在only不only根本没关系

就算是only又怎么样，但submitting a list of holdings可能是有其他用处，就好比有的人考GMAT只不过是想挑战一下自己的思维，不一定是去申请mba,虽然考gmat是美国MBA申请的only way,所以并不能因此就认为很可能去申请MBA,因为不能排除这种可能

Tono

B是无关项,submitting list只是run for the governor的必要条件.

jhleoh

I choose E.  

As for E,answering yes or no doesn't support or weaken the argument because at least he already fufill the requirment to be a candidate anyway no matter how many options he has.

As for E, answering yes will weaken the argument by suggesting that even though he fullfill the requirment this year, he also fullfilled it last year when he didn't become the candidate. So he is likely not to become the candidate this year again.  But answering no will strengthen the argument.

cm1977

I prefer B, the answer E is totally irrelevant.

debbiejada

C为什么不可以呢?

如果消息是假的,那就根本没这回事了嘛

想不通的说

追逐梦想2006

E更好

读完文章，我判断可能的答案会使这件事情是不是必须的，即必要性

看到B，一眼看出是错误答案，它只能说明是否充分