SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（六）Weaken

jeffxu

Excellent series! Thank you very much!

wupenghui2000

阅过~

红果果的花菜

sorry but why not C?
Thanks.

Hi SDCAR,

Here is a weakening question at which I found in the forum:


Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak:its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies.Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially.Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

My doubt is that B and E both can be used to refute the politicians, but how to choose a better one as the anwser? Thanks~~~

-- by 会员 perain (2011/6/30 11:16:38)

This is a tough CR question. The key is analyzing the two possible choices in the backdrops of the question prompt.

B) says that even if the currency is weakened, the export will not increase because the manufacture industry reaches its top. So B) efinitely weakens the politician's argument.

E) points out an alternative way of increasing export. But it does not refute the politician's argument that devalue the currency will increase export. The politician's argument still holds.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/2 9:43:53)

sdcar2010

The passage talks about currency and export, with no mention of economy.

C) talks about economy, which is out of scope. Therefore, C) is wrong.

sorry but why not C?
Thanks.

Hi SDCAR,

Here is a weakening question at which I found in the forum:


Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak:its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies.Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially.Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

My doubt is that B and E both can be used to refute the politicians, but how to choose a better one as the anwser? Thanks~~~

-- by 会员 perain (2011/6/30 11:16:38)

This is a tough CR question. The key is analyzing the two possible choices in the backdrops of the question prompt.

B) says that even if the currency is weakened, the export will not increase because the manufacture industry reaches its top. So B) efinitely weakens the politician's argument.

E) points out an alternative way of increasing export. But it does not refute the politician's argument that devalue the currency will increase export. The politician's argument still holds.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/2 9:43:53)

-- by 会员 红果果的花菜 (2011/8/8 18:04:08)

zx19890626

lz好牛~膜拜一下~~

用户名已注册

Parts I would like to cover in the future:
Flaw (part 2)
Inference
Parallel Reasoning

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/28 19:51:37)

your previous posts benefit me a lot.
looking forward to your new posts!

shallowshade

Hi SDCAR,

Here is a weakening question at which I found in the forum:


Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak:its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies.Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially.Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

My doubt is that B and E both can be used to refute the politicians, but how to choose a better one as the anwser? Thanks~~~

-- by 会员 perain (2011/6/30 11:16:38)

This is a tough CR question. The key is analyzing the two possible choices in the backdrops of the question prompt.

B) says that even if the currency is weakened, the export will not increase because the manufacture industry reaches its top. So B) efinitely weakens the politician's argument.

E) points out an alternative way of increasing export. But it does not refute the politician's argument that devalue the currency will increase export. The politician's argument still holds.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/2 9:43:53)

SDCAR，you are so excellent! After reading your explaination, I wonna say that the most important thing of CR is to exactly recognise  premises and conclusions. As in this CR question, we should keep in mind that we need to find some thing that lead to a failue of the politician to increase the export through devalue of pundra (the other side of the conclusion ), not to find some alternative for the politician to reach their goal. Am I right ?

sdcar2010

LS, you are right.

Roberta2011

看完NN的帖子有恍然大悟的感觉 Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us!!!!!!

Crystaljoy

请教一个~~
unreasonable assumptions中的例子
“We should support the proposed law, which requires government officials to disclose their annual incomes, because it will give ordinary citizens a fair chance to keep an eye on and more control over when and how elected officials receive gifts and benefits from lobbyists.”

我的想法：
premise：because it will give ordinary citizens a fair chance to keep an eye on and more control over when and how elected officials receive gifts and benefits from lobbyists
conclusion：We should support the proposed law, which requires government officials to disclose their annual incomes
因为这项法律能让公民监督监管官员受贿，所以要支持通过。我怎么没觉得不对劲呢？

你说This argument unreasonably assumes that “giving ordinary citizens a fair chance to keep an eye on and more control” is good.  我没看明白呢，作者给的假设有误？