SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（三）Main Point

812966141

好文。对做阅读和写作帮助都很大~

812966141

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.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/12/31 12:20:32)

for the this question,what is the difference between the auther's opinion and his conclusion

sdcar2010

Author's opinion: I believe in something

Author's conclusion: Whly I believe in that thing.

eejqchen

(B) Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine

4)why not choose B? thks!

sdcar2010

This is a typical wrong answer type of "half right, half wrong."  Does the passage talk about the safety of fluoride and iodine?

(B) Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine

4)why not choose B? thks!

-- by 会员 eejqchen (2012/4/25 20:46:17)

twwzx

“Many people think that Tsinghua graduates are sensitive to political issues. But that is not the case because . . .”   SDCAR 你在第五章中说BUT后面的是CONCESSION. 为什么这里的BUT 之后加的是CONCLUSION 呢?

sdcar2010

1) Common structures for arguments:
Opinion. However, conclusion. Premise.
Opinion. Although concession, conclusion. Premise.

Notice the position of the opinion.  Also notice that concession can follow the keywords like but, however and although.

2) Another structure for concession:
Conclusion. But, concession.
Example: Your statements are logically correct.  But you might want to pay attention to the context when analyzing the structure.

twwzx

太感谢了

kylelewis

I made two mistakes, God forbid!!
Keeping improving and many thanks to sdcar2010.

happyhxl

3) Theater Critic: The play La Finestrina, now at Central Theater, was written in Italy in the eighteenth century (background). The director claims that this production is as similar to the original production as is possible in a modern theater (opinion). Although the actor who plays Harlequin the clown gives a performance very reminiscent of the twentieth-century American comedian Groucho Marx (concession), Marx’s comic style was very much within the comic acting tradition that had begun in sixteenth-century Italy (premise).

The considerations given best serve as part of an argument that

(A) Modern audiences would find it hard to tolerate certain characteristics of a historically accurate performance of an eighteenth-century play
(B) Groucho Marx once performed the part of the character Harlequin in La Finestrina
(C) In the United States the training of actors in the twentieth century is based on principles that do not differ radically from those that underlay the training of actors in eighteenth-century Italy
(D) The performance of the actor who plays Harlequin in La Finestrina does not serve as evidence against the director’s claim
(E) The director of La Finestrina must have advised the actor who plays Harlequin to model his performance on comic performances of Groucho Marx

As highlighted, the flow of the argument is Background, Opinion, Concession, premise. So the unstated main conclusion can be reached according to the last sentence of the argument: performance of the actor is as similar to the original old Italian style as you can get.

The conclusion says that actor = Marx = acient Italian style.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/19 10:49:52)