SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（三）Main Point

翠儿卡

NN, many thanks for your sharing and could you help me confirm if i have got the points.

Encountering all of the options, firsly, i should pick out the irrelevant ones that the information appear in the background information or opinions hold other than the author.

Secondly, figure out the disturbing content such as details something represented in premises or intermediate conclusion if any.

in most cases, the remaining one will be the best answer and we can test it according to principle posted by Lawyer.

Look forward to your reply and i am digesting other posts in this series.

翠儿卡

something to add.

choice E in 2) is irrelevant, right?

sdcar2010

NN, many thanks for your sharing and could you help me confirm if i have got the points.

Encountering all of the options, firsly, i should pick out the irrelevant ones that the information appear in the background information or opinions hold other than the author.

Secondly, figure out the disturbing content such as details something represented in premises or intermediate conclusion if any.

in most cases, the remaining one will be the best answer and we can test it according to principle posted by Lawyer.

Look forward to your reply and i am digesting other posts in this series.

-- by 会员 翠儿卡 (2011/11/11 22:37:42)

Sound good. If you eliminate all the bad apple, the one remaining is the good one!

echine

真是好帖！清晰易懂！！

viola芊

太好的资料了，，LZ强大

奈奈奈

After I eliminated all the bad apples,  C and E are left in question (1). Could you explain what's wrong with C?

sdcar2010

1) As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe (opinion). In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own (background). Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire (opposing opinion). I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective (main conclusion).

The author’s main point is that

(A) Although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) The temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe
(E) Disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States

As highlighted above, the flow of the argument is Author's opinion, Background, opposing opinion, conclusion. I should point out the way the main conclusion is presented is pretty unusual by using a figurative language. If you compare the opposing opinion with the author's conclusion, you would notice that effectively, the author proclaims that the opposing's opinion is wrong. And if you negate the opposing opinion, you would get the main conclusion, which states in choice E).

As for C), long-term losses are not mentioned anywhere in the passage. However, main point question is must-be-true type. So C) is wrong.

奈奈奈

thank you so much

wildmantomba

My attempt to figure out the structure of NO.4

4) Recently, environmentalists have argued that (indicator for background information) the government should stop adding fluoride to our water supply(opposing viewpoint).I think this is wrong. I support adding fluoride to our water supply for the same reason I support adding iodine to common table salt(Main Conclusion).I admit that (indicator for concession) the addition of iodine to table salt has proven benefits and is far less controversial than the addition of fluoride to the water supply (Concession). Still, I wonder if the same environments who argue against fluoride would argue against iodine.

Which of the following is the author's main point (prompt for main point question)?

(A) The addition of fluoride to our water supply should continue.
(B)  Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine. (Not mentioned)
(C) Thegovernment should contiue any efforts it feels are in the public's best interests. (Not mentioned)
(D) Environmentalists are unable to recognize the benefits of iodine in table salt. (Actually, the last sentence, I wonder if the same environmentalsts who argue against fluoride would argue against iodine, implies that the environmentalists are able to recognize the benefits of iodine in table salt )
(E) Environmentalists should not be believed in matters of public health. (Not mentioned)

As highlighted, the flow of the argument is Opposing viewpoint, Conclustion, Concession. So we can find the main point from the main conclusion of the passage:  government should not stop adding fluoride to our water supply.

wildmantomba

more Main Point question
大全 14-12
Althoughaspirin has been proven to eliminate moderate fever associated with some illnesses, many doctors no longer routinely recommend its use for this purpose.A moderate fever stimulates the activity of the body’s disease-fighting white blood cells and also inhibits the growth of many strains of disease-causing bacteria.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Aspirin, an effective painkiller, alleviates the pain and discomfort of many illnesses.
(B) Aspirin can prolong a patient’s illness by eliminating moderate fever helpful in fighting some diseases.
(C) Aspirin inhibits the growth of white blood cells, which are necessary for fighting some illnesses.
(D) The more white blood cells a patient’s body produces, the less severe the patient’s illness will be.
(E) The focus of modern medicine is on inhibiting the growth of disease-causing bacteria within the body.