SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（七) Strengthen and Paradox

泾渭不凡

谢谢sdcar~亲民神哇~~~~~~~~

米米时代007

SDCAR太牛了，五体投地，一定要好好研读！

单调唱

佩服~向你看齐~~~fighting !!!

littleyya

做OG分类去了。。

PhoebeQi

NN~i am confused about 107 in og. i wonder why A can't support the conclusion. i seperate for recycling enough refuse and don't incinerate them, then the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated must be reduced and the ash must be reduced, right? thx

sdcar2010

107. Last year all refuse collected byShelbyville city services was incinerated（焚烧）. This incineration generated a large quantity of residual ash. Inorder to reduce the amount of residual ash Shelbyville generates this year tohalf of last year’s total, the city has revamped its collection program. Thisyear city services will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce thenumber of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half of last year’s number.
Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim?
(A) This year, no materials that cityservices could separate for recycling will be incinerated.
(B) Separating recyclable materials frommaterials to be incinerated will cost Shelbyville less than half what it costlast year to dispose of the residual ash.
(C)Refuse collected by city services willcontain a larger proportion of recyclable materials this year than it did lastyear.
(D) The refuse incinerated this year willgenerate no more residual ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incineratedlast year.
(E) The total quantity of refuse collectedby Shelbyville city services this year will be no greater than that collectedlast year.


The problem with answer A) is that you do not know the amount that the city separates NOT for recylcing and hence, will be incinerated!  Even if the city recycles all it wants, it is still possible that whatever left would be MORE the truckloads produced last year.  Since the conclusion is about the amount of ashes produced after incineration, the amount that would be recycled has no bearing on the conclusion.

PhoebeQi

oh! i got it! thanks a lot!

eejqchen

eejqchen

1. “Life expectancy” is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.

Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?

(A) In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today.
(B) Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life.
(C) Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century.
(D) The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties.
(E) More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.

B Correct. Greatly reducing fi rst-year infant mortality will have a large impact on the average life expectancy of the population as a whole. Th at, rather than grown adults living twice as long, is enough to account for a large portion of the doubling in average life expectancy.

没看明白是为什么

以前婴儿头一年的死亡率高的话，平均的话会导致life expectancy低啊 这不是支持这个观点么（在以前时候，人们会认为在现在的刚开始的年龄是老的）求NN解答

PhoebeQi

我觉得我分不清什么叫结论的特殊性和结论的具体性= =||特殊性是跟前面说的没啥关系吗？具体性是把前面说的东西具体化了？