SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)

sdcar2010

Original argument: If today is Monday, then I will go to school.

Correct argument: If I do not go to school today, then today is not Monday.

Wrong argument: If today is NOT Monday, then I will NOT go to school. (Negating both conditions without switching them)
Wrong argument: If I go to school today, then today is Monday. (Switching both conditions without negating them)

Hello, SDCAR2010. Thx for the posts. They are really helpful.
There is one thing I got so confused "Negating both conditions without switching them.Switching both conditions without negating them"

Can you please give a specific example regards these two concepts? I do read your example, it seems like "a matching question" to me. If A does, B does. If A does not, B does not.

-- by 会员 yjiang23 (2011/11/29 1:10:46)

belindacqy

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.


The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support


Hi,sdcar. I've read all the discussion on the former pages, but i cannot fully understand your opinion.
So, i post my idea and leave it to you for discussion:
When i look at C, i find that it contains lots of abstract words, such as "generalization about lingering" and "exception".
Then i take a look at the premises, i find they are basiclly two key points:
1)why to choose tall seat---viewing.
2)the result----diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
However, i found that the second one is a COMPARISON. It did not say that diners seated on stools wont stay here for a LONG TIME, because diners seated on stools can stay here for 1 min, and diners seated at standard-height tables can stay here for 2mins. We can also say that  diners seated on stools stay here for N hrs, and diners seated at standard-height tables stay here for N+1 hours.
Then, i go back to the choice C. "generalization about lingering", esp lingering means stay here for a LONG time. However, based on the premise, we cant deem the comparison as a directly saying that diners seated on stools stay here for a LONG TIME.
So the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion, which focus on the turn-over.(time sensitive). "would be an exception to the generalization about lingering" directly point out that diners seated on stools wont stay here for so long. However, from all the information given in the stimulas(esp. the comparison), we cant make this conclusion. As a result, the argument is vulnerable to criticism by saying "a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering"=diners seated on stools wont stay here for so long.

Can i make a further step to say that i should pay attention to the comparison(relative idea) in the stimulus? It may not point out an exact fact/ absolute situation.

Ahhh, hope you can understand my opinions.
Cheers.

sdcar2010

Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay. NOT stay here for a LONG TIME.

What C) says is:
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (who would also stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering or common staying pattern (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).

xiaoliupao

here is my analysis, which has minor differences with  previous one.

"no evidence" plus "others can not prove" -> either lying or mistaken


but laura only attacks one of the two premises with the state that "someone has proved it", which means the conclusion could still hold as "he is lying", as the "either or" relation in the conclusion.


if there anything wrong, please advise!

泾渭不凡

照例，顶出来，困境区有很多XDJM要看呢~

笨蛋加油

30.    (31790-!-item-!-188;#058&005444)

A city plans to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities such as parks, recreation centers, and libraries.  One component of the city's plan is to require that developers seeking permission to build this new housing provide these additional facilities at no cost to the city.

Which of the following, if true, would point to a possible flaw in the city's plan?

(A) Developers would pass along their costs to the buyer, thereby raising the cost of housing units beyond the ability of likely purchasers to afford them.
(B) Light, nonpolluting industries have located in the area, offering more jobs and better-paying jobs than do the more-established industries in the area.
(C) Other towns and cities nearby have yet to embark on any comparable plans to attract new citizens.
(D) Most developers see the extra expense of providing municipal facilities as simply one of the many costs of doing business.
(E) Studies show that purchasers of new houses, especially first-time buyers, rank recreational resources as an important factor in deciding to buy a particular house.
亲爱的lz，我怎么也看不明白这道题目的前提和结论啊，这题该怎么分析呢？

sdcar2010

30.    (31790-!-item-!-188;#058&005444)

A city plans to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities such as parks, recreation centers, and libraries.  One component of the city's plan is to require that developers seeking permission to build this new housing provide these additional facilities at no cost to the city.

Which of the following, if true, would point to a possible flaw in the city's plan?

(A) Developers would pass along their costs to the buyer, thereby raising the cost of housing units beyond the ability of likely purchasers to afford them.
(B) Light, nonpolluting industries have located in the area, offering more jobs and better-paying jobs than do the more-established industries in the area.
(C) Other towns and cities nearby have yet to embark on any comparable plans to attract new citizens.
(D) Most developers see the extra expense of providing municipal facilities as simply one of the many costs of doing business.
(E) Studies show that purchasers of new houses, especially first-time buyers, rank recreational resources as an important factor in deciding to buy a particular house.
亲爱的lz，我怎么也看不明白这道题目的前提和结论啊，这题该怎么分析呢？

-- by 会员 笨蛋加油 (2012/2/10 10:25:56)

笨蛋加油

lz能否用另一种方法帮我理解一下题目？看不太懂这前提和结论的关系

笨蛋加油

30.    (31790-!-item-!-188;#058&005444)

A city plans to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities such as parks, recreation centers, and libraries.  One component of the city's plan is to require that developers seeking permission to build this new housing provide these additional facilities at no cost to the city.

Which of the following, if true, would point to a possible flaw in the city's plan?

(A) Developers would pass along their costs to the buyer, thereby raising the cost of housing units beyond the ability of likely purchasers to afford them.
(B) Light, nonpolluting industries have located in the area, offering more jobs and better-paying jobs than do the more-established industries in the area.
(C) Other towns and cities nearby have yet to embark on any comparable plans to attract new citizens.
(D) Most developers see the extra expense of providing municipal facilities as simply one of the many costs of doing business.
(E) Studies show that purchasers of new houses, especially first-time buyers, rank recreational resources as an important factor in deciding to buy a particular house.
亲爱的lz，我怎么也看不明白这道题目的前提和结论啊，这题该怎么分析呢？

-- by 会员 笨蛋加油 (2012/2/10 10:25:56)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/10 10:53:01)

依然不明白啊lz。。。凭感觉能作对这道题，但是感觉这个argument不按套路走啊？？？

sdcar2010

In order to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities, the city plans to require the developers (who are seeking permission to build new houses) to pay for these additional facilities out of their own pocket.

A) says that the builders will pass on the extra cost to buyers. Thus the price of the new houses will be inflated. As a result, the potential buyers might be turned away. The plan will fail.