SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（六）Weaken

sdcar2010

Original conclusion: “Mr. Zhang will be a good addition to our finance department because he has worked in banks in Wall Street.”

New evidence: “Mr. Zhang recently had a big fight with our current finance VP during a M&A discussion.”
Notice, this evidence is unrelated to the original premises; it has nothing to do with Mr. Zhang's experience on Wall Street. But the new evidence make the conclusion that Mr. Zhang will fit in his role in the finance department less likely.

So do not skip an answer choice SIMPLY because it does not address the points raised in the original argument (such as a premise). Focus on the new unfavorable light shining on the conclusion (by the new evidence).

kingarthur00

? The correct answer usually offers new evidence that makes you doubt the conclusion without directly contradicting the original evidence
in the passage. “Mr. Zhang will be a good addition to our finance department because he has worked in banks in Wall Street.”
New evidence: “Mr. Zhang worked as a computer programmer in Wall Street.” This new evidence does not contradict the original
premise, but it does cast doubt on the original conclusion. Another possible answer: “Mr. Zhang worked in Wall Street for a total of
two weeks before being let go.” Still another: “Mr. Zhang recently had a big fight with our current finance VP during a M&A discussion.”
Notice, this evidence is unrelated to the original premises; it has nothing to do with Wall Street. So do not skip an answer choice
because it does not address the points raised in the original argument. Focus on the new unfavorable light shining on the conclusion.

Dear sdcar2010,
it seems that sometimes we may come across the options including both
“Mr. Zhang worked as a computer programmer in Wall Street.”---------sort of Wall Street stuff, which is not only effect on the premise but also weaken the conclusion

and

“Mr. Zhang recently had a big fight with our current finance VP during a M&A discussion.”-------------the option could weaken the conclusion , but does not appear any relation with the premise--Wall Street

shall we still  choose   “Mr. Zhang worked as a computer programmer in Wall Street.”?  
becuase Wall Street option  is better than another option

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/19 12:42:55)

sdcar2010

The fact that "Mr. Zhang worked as a computer programmer in Wall Street" will NOT strengthen the conclusion that he will be a good addition to the FINANCE department because the assumption is that if one works in Wall Street, one knows very well about stocks and financial transactions; therefore, a nice addition to the financial department.

But I doubt you have to choose the better between two devils during the real exams. I chose these two examples to show different ways to weaken the conclusion, not to strengthen it.

MarsTOF

继续跟。。

rikihsu

辛苦楼主，看的好清晰～～～

dualtunnal

多谢sdcar2010，讲得真的很好

doublesophia

觉得你思路太清晰了，谢谢了

srosalita

LZ请允许我亲吻你的左脚！！你太棒了！！！AWESOME!!!

Kb24

为啥是左脚

mia113

感觉思路更清晰··真的很感谢LZ