gwd-3-32

groundkeeper · 发表于 2004-7-9 17:18:00

以下是引用robertchu在2004-7-9 12:09:00的发言：

This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.

LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.

Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.

Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人) You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR). So, choice A is not relevant. You don’t even needs to try deny test here.

I still can't understand why A is irreleveant.

Now let’s look at C. C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released." Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released." In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release. This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart. So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.

I have question: Since deny C, we got" the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released"----means coursesd--->fewer crimes--->why we deny it again to get the LoR of the author:{ inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate}.....confusing.....maybe I misunderstand something

Two side notes:

Deny test: "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart. If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.

The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?

I see, but I think why not the opposite of A is "Being able to to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."(读书不可能deter任何人)---

Open to discussion.

many many thanks for robert's help! you are so nice!!

I still have some question, 看看大家的看法吧？？^-^！！！

maybe the biggest problem is my poor english!!

叮当 · 发表于 2004-7-9 21:42:00

Robertchu's explanation is excellent!

Koror · 发表于 2004-7-9 21:48:00

Agree with A

- conclusion is the last sentence

- (concealed assumption) - counter to surprise

robertchu · 发表于 2004-7-10 08:25:00

I guess the key to solve this question is to understand that there are two arguments presented in the passage, the governor's and the passage author's. The question is only asking for assumption made by the passage author. So, although A is relevant to the governor's line of reasoning, it is not directly related to the author's line ofreasoning.
Try to focus on the author's LoR. Ignore the governor's LoR. And you will see why C mades a better choice.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-10 8:30:05编辑过]

caterpillar · 发表于 2004-7-14 00:07:00

Robertchu解释得真好。

支持答案C。个人理解，还请大家指点：

1、这题的argument是作者的argument,而governor的那些论断和做法只能作为argument的背景材料，所有的推论和assumption都应该围绕作者本人的论证过程来进行。因此本题的结论是：该行为有违governor本来的最终目标（降低犯罪率）；原因是：在监狱里上过大学的人出来后犯罪率比别的犯人犯罪率低。言下之意，如果不上大学，他们会和别的犯人犯罪率一样高。（注意这里隐含了一个推论过程：造成这种结果是因为他们上了大学，而不是别的什么原因。）选项C恰好符合这个隐含的推论条件。

2、其实OG里有挺多这样类似的题，就是AB两个事件一起发生，并不一定说明A就是B的原因。有可能B是A的原因，也有可能谁也不是谁的原因。这里问assumption,就是要排除这些错误的可能，从而使推论成立。

DEDE22 · 发表于 2004-8-5 04:55:00

我觉得C 不对。

This is an interesting question. To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR). Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.
LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.

Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.
Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人)  You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR).  So, choice A is not relevant.  You don’t even needs to try deny test here.
Now let’s look at C.  C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released."  Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely[就是说读大学的比没读大学的可能少犯罪，就是支持AUTHOR的结论，读书的人出来犯罪的少。所以，C是错的。]... to commit crimes after being released."  In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release.  This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart.  So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.
Two side notes:
Deny test:  "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart.  If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.

The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人). 而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人). See the subtle differences between them?
Open to discussion.

swiffer · 发表于 2004-8-13 01:12:00

我觉得选C是因为即使对A取非，也不能反驳作者the action won't reduce crime rate 的结论。如果作者所说的less crime rate-->access to college courses成立，那么取消大学课程会有两个后果：deter someone from a crime; no less crime rate.这并不能反驳作者the action won't reduce crime rate 的结论。欢迎讨论！

mindfree · 发表于 2004-8-13 01:34:00

It should be C. A simple test: A indicates that taking the courses has no impact on reducing crime rate. This is apparent opposite to the argument, in which the author is trying to say that by denying the access to such courses, the governor will not achieve his goal of reducing crime rate, indicating that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate.

C is clearly the answer in this question. The argument is trying to point out that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate. C indicates that it was not because people are already less likely to commit crime when they take the courses.

tony6 · 发表于 2004-8-19 23:28:00