SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（六）Weaken

sdcar2010

Again, we are talking about logic, not the consequence of the proposal.

If you look at the argument, it says:
Because the proposal give the voter more control over what government officials get from lobbyists, we should support the proposal.

Is this reason good enough for and beneficial to voters?  A common assumption is that anything that MONITORS or CONTROLS what the officials are doing are GOOD for the voters. If this is the case, the above argument is sound. If not, then the above argument is flawed. For example, maybe lobbyists have better understanding about certain projects for the nation as a whole and the officials need inputs from the lobbyists, and such interactions are better kept private.

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？

-- by 会员 Crystaljoy (2011/10/13 20:43:58)

Crystaljoy

OIC！！！

还是自己视野尚窄，才没搞懂。


Thx Sdcar~

月照琳琅

Big hug  Thx for your effort to illustrate the patterns of logic. I have improved a lot.

bonfin

小柏。？

小cvv

小柏。？

-- by 会员 bonfin (2011/10/31 9:28:56)

哈哈  我曾经也这么以为过……不过最后发现SDCAR2010牛牛不是小柏~

vampire10

看了NN的讲解，觉得很不错。我能在题目里找到Main conclusion, opinion, premise等等你让找的，而且大部分找到的都很准确。但是怎么从premise推到Main conclusion,而opinion又怎样影响M.C.这样的推理过程，解决的不好。总觉得想的，和看到答案讲解的推理过程不一样。就是跟GMAC出题人员思路不在一条路上。像这样怎么解决啊？求讲解。先谢谢了。

sdcar2010

The short answer is that you need more practice.

The long answer would involve analyzing why your thinking was wrong. Could you give an example of your  推理过程 vs that of GMAT?

看了NN的讲解，觉得很不错。我能在题目里找到Main conclusion, opinion, premise等等你让找的，而且大部分找到的都很准确。但是怎么从premise推到Main conclusion,而opinion又怎样影响M.C.这样的推理过程，解决的不好。总觉得想的，和看到答案讲解的推理过程不一样。就是跟GMAC出题人员思路不在一条路上。像这样怎么解决啊？求讲解。先谢谢了。

-- by 会员 vampire10 (2011/12/8 19:55:15)

wildmantomba

However, I do hope by reading my posts, you can improve your understanding of CR eventually.

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

They do help. Thanks a lot.

GTpower

Thanks. Your posts is really helpful.

桃夭靥

能不能问个很傻的问题，具体什么叫做Must-Be-True type of question？
谢谢