SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（四）Role (Boldface)

perain

错的好惨，期待sd大神解答。

于小笨

about this Question, I mistakenly chose A. Could you have a more detailed explaination for me? I agree with your conclusion and opposed opinion,  but I would like to know if the optimum answer need to demonstrate entire information according to the passage?

1) Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. (C)
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.

Main conclusion:
The use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread
Opposing opinion:
The savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer

sdcar2010

Thank you ! Sdcar2010, but i am little confused about the distiction between the premise and the evidence, i think  the 1st BF is  part of evidences which parallels with "More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced" as a whole  to substantiate the main conclusion. could you shed some light on the difference between the premise and evidence?

-- by 会员 jameshzd (2011/6/19 14:31:57)

In a nutshell,
A Premise directly supports a Conclusion; and
An Evidence directly supports a Premise.

Based on the above definition, 1st BF is a premise, not an evidence, since it directly supports the conclusion, not the first premise.

sdcar2010

9. Something must be done to ease traffic congestion. In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived; but now that stores and workplaces are located far away from residential areas, people cannot avoid traveling long distances each day. Traffic congestion is so heavy on all roads that, even on major highways where the maximum speed limit is 55 miles per hour, the actual speed averages only 35 miles per hour. So new businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) Background that the argument depends on and conclusion that can be drawn from the argument.
(B) Part of evidence that the argument includes, and inference that can be drawn from this passage.
(C) Pre-evidence that the argument depends on and part of evidence that supports the conclusion.
(D) Background that argument depends on and part of evidence that supports the conclusion.
(E) Pre-evidence that argument includes and a method that helps to supports that conclusion.

Something must be done to ease traffic congestion (Main Conclusion). In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived; but now that stores and workplaces are located far away from residential areas, people cannot avoid traveling long distances each day (Evidence). Traffic congestion is so heavy on all roads that, even on major highways where the maximum speed limit is 55 miles per hour, the actual speed averages only 35 miles per hour (Premise). So new businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live (inference? or recommendation).

So the structure is: Conclusion, Evidence, Premise, Inference (?) or recommendation.

Inference: It is something that must be true based on certain facts. Normally, it would not show up in an argument in which premises and a conclusion are present. However, we have seen quite a few similar question, where the author starts with a conclusion like  (Something must be done) and ends with a recommandation (Somthing very detailed should be done). Does the last sentence fits the bill of an inference? Not quite because it is not a Must-be-true type of answer. It is more like a subsidiary conclusion, something that the author recommends. However, you cannot arrive at the recommendation simply following from the premise given.

Therefore, the answer is a toss-up between A and B.

I suspect the origin of this question is not from GMAC.  Too many confusions, no clear-cut winner among the answer choices!

jameshzd

Thank you ! Sdcar2010, but i am little confused about the distiction between the premise and the evidence, i think  the 1st BF is  part of evidences which parallels with "More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced" as a whole  to substantiate the main conclusion. could you shed some light on the difference between the premise and evidence?

-- by 会员 jameshzd (2011/6/19 14:31:57)

In a nutshell,
A Premise directly supports a Conclusion; and
An Evidence directly supports a Premise.

Based on the above definition, 1st BF is a premise, not an evidence, since it directly supports the conclusion, not the first premise.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/19 20:35:40)

Thank you so much ! my dear instructor ~

lxcyun

楼主请确证答案－就是你后来贴的10个题，感觉有的不对至少是有的不对，例如第一个应该是E吧第四个应该是C吧等。                                                                                                                        

-- by 会员 lxcyun (2011/6/19 6:43:27)

Thanks!

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/19 8:27:57)

LZ热心而强悍，像lz学习观其相背！

sdcar2010

1) Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. (C)
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.

Main conclusion:
The use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread
Opposing opinion:
The savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage (Background). Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones (Premise to support Intermediate Conclusion or opposing opinion). Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer (Intermediate Conclusion or opposing opinion). However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise (Premise), the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread (Main Conclusion).

There are two viewpoints here. The first part of the argument presents a well-supported opinion or prediction. The last sentence is the author's voice to argue against the opinion/prediction.

A) is a very tempting choice since it mentions Conclusion. But the 2nd BF also contains a Premise as well. Overall, C) is a better choice.

lxcyun

本人将7，选了B；8选了B。纠结中...

perain

Dear Sdcar,

Besides the premise and conclusion(I can discern them now thanks to your posts! ),  some other components such as Fact, Principle, Consideration, Prediction and Evidence often shows up in the options.

I found these terms quite confusing, would you please explain more about those components?

sdcar2010

7. To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one must have a net worth of over ten million dollars and must not have any connections to the entertainment industry. Robert Chase, the publishing magnate, has a net worth of 5 billion dollars and chase has not financed any Hollywood movies, so he must be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A)The first is the part of evidence in support of this argument; the second is the conclusion that could not be drawn from all evidence that the argument contains.
(B) The first is the first-evidence that supports this argument; the second is the mainpoint that must be drawn from all evidence that the argument includes.
(C) The first is the one fact of two that argument includes; the second is the conclusion that could be drawn from this passage.
(D) The first is the background that is necessary for this argument; the second is the conclusion that is not drawn only from the first.
(E) The first is the cause that the argument includes; the second is the effect that can be drawn only from this cause.

Premises:
1) To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one must have a net worth of over ten million dollars and must not have any connections to the entertainment industry.
2) Robert Chase, the publishing magnate, has a net worth of 5 billion dollars and Chase has not financed any Hollywood movies.

Conclusion:
Mr. Chase must be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club

Now the question is: is the conclusion valid? There are two conditions which must be met in order to be accepted as a club member. Mr. Chase is rich enough to meet the first condition. But take a closer look at the second condition: must not have any connections to the entertainment industry. What Mr. Chase has? Chase has not financed any Hollywood movies.  Could Mr. Chase know executives in Hollywood movies industry? Yes, he could. Financing movies is only a tiny part of having connections to the entertinment industry. So Mr. Chase does not qualify to join the club based on his own disclosure. Answer choice A) is correct.