GWD-6-21正确选项如何理解

lawyer_1

认为E不妥，理由如下

1。E的意思为：多数试改良品种（下称新品种）的农民改用新品种的原因是不是因为以前不得不使用大量农药。一个答案是原来用农药太多才改种新品种。另一个答案是其他原因使他们改，也许是special need 。但文章在讨论的是换新品种是否经济有利（注意结论的benefit economically）的问题，是在算经济账。跟原来为何要改没关系。如果改的原因是原来用农药多，从农民的报告看，改后用药也省不了多少。关键的是单纯从E是推不出改后用农药多少，改后用药多少是从原文得出。如果是其他原因，那就更对原文起不了作用，因为E没说，你不知其他何原因让农民改，说不定是政府强制试验，WHO KNOWS。其实E只在为何改上讲，除此之外什么也没说，更不能得出任何对算经济账有用的信息，即使是改的原因是原来用农药太多，你也得不出改后用农药就少，何况另一个答案是其他与经济无关的原因。所以E是不合适的。

2。我倾向B。问题要求找能EVALUATE原文推理的，实际就是支持和反对原文推理。这两者的要求不高，只要在推理的逻辑线上（不要在推理外，讨论的话题不要在原文的推理之外），在方向上对结论起支持和反对作用就行了。不象ASSUMPTION，要排除其他可能。

3。具体到本题，原文是在算经济账，算算新旧品种那种合算。跟其他因素无关。新品种省农药但种子贵，旧品种种子便宜但用药多。要严格比较那种在经济上合算，是必须将有关的价格因素进行对比，多多少，少多少，但原文没有，这就是为何该题不是问ASSUMPTION的原因（必须排除其他可能）。问题问支持反对，满足两个条件就可以（当然MOST题时还存在程度的问题）。对B选项，如果旧品种用的农药比新品种贵，这在更换新品种的经济账上加了一个筹码，更换经济合算的可能性增大，起支持作用。反之，则在更换新品种的经济账上减了一个筹码，更换经济不合算的可能性增大，起反对作用。所以B正确。

4。现在留下的问题是B中的other crops 能否包括modified cotton（注意只要包括就可以）。我认为应该包括。other 修饰的crops用复数，other在这里的意思为：the rest。 used to refer to all the people or things in a group apart from the one you have already mentioned or the one that is already known about. 即除你已知道或提到的之外的全部。对B选项已经提到的是ordinary cotton，除ordinary cotton之外的全部庄家，当然应该包括modified cotton。其实B要表达的意思是ordinary cotton用的农药是最贵的，直接告诉你比modified cotton太便宜你，这不是ETS的风格，他们总要绕着说。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-18 8:18:27编辑过]

robertchu

Does "other crops" include modified cotton?  I don't think so.  In my opinion, "other" means other than "cotton", not necessarily "orinary cotton".  In any case, B is ambiguous.  E doesn't have this ambiguity problem.

lawyer_1

"将E否定看. 就是说用新的老的杀虫剂的量一样. 那的确是换不换杀虫剂没有经济上的影响." 单纯从 E选项是找不到新产品的杀虫剂用量的的信息。怎能说“用新的老的杀虫剂的量一样”。E可没作任何比较。即使农民认为新品种可能会用药少，也不见得实际就是，反正E选项没说，就是等于不知道。

lawyer_1

对other crops的理解的补充。

1。上面23楼引用的英文解释来源于朗文字典4版（这要感谢PUMPKIN推荐该字典），我查了其它英英字典，包括OXYFORD和COLLIN，ENCYCLOPEDIA。解释都一致，都表示：排除掉前面已提到或知道的以外剩下的部分（总概念是OTHER后面的名词）。具体到该题，总概念是CROPS（OTHER后面的名词），前面提到的是ORDINARY COTTON。那麽所有CROPS（总概念）除掉ORDINARY COTTON（前面提到），剩下的部分应该包括ORDINARY COTTON外的其它COTTON，当然包括MODIFIED COTTON，还有其它不是ORDINARY的棉花。

2。其实对OTHER的理解可见LSAT2-2-6题，该题提到了6个OTHER。我举其中一个句子。The conservation of bald eagles is the first necessary step in conserving other endangered species（A 选项）.

保护秃鹰是保护其它面临灭绝的物种的必要的第一步。我想不会有人认为其它面临灭绝的鹰类不在保护范围内吧。这句话和争议的那句话很相似。这句话总概念（OTHER 后面）是endangered species（面临灭绝的物种），前面提到的是bald eagles （秃鹰）。eagles有60多种，不仅仅秃鹰面临灭绝。

3。将OTHER CROPS理解为COTTON外的其它庄家也许是受中文影响。如果前面提到的名词和OTHER后面的名词之间没中概念，则易理解。如前面提到JOHN，后面总概念是BOYS，则较清楚：除JOHN外的其它男孩。但若有中概念，象上面的中概念COTTON，EAGLE。如果只排除中概念中的一部分，而不是整个中概念都排除，是和中文的“其它”概念不太一致。其实你忽略中概念，将ORDINARY COTTON看成是CROPS大家庭中的一种，而不是一种COTTON，就易理解。如果没放掉种概念，理解起来是很危险的。比如将上面ORDINARY COTTON改为BOAR（公猪），那后面的OTHER ANIMALS包不包括SOW（母猪）。其实在英文里，同一类的不同品种有不同的英语单词，不象中文可用修饰词指一类中的不同品种。

mindfree

Lawyer,

Your focus is on the economic benefit in the argument and mine is on the "most". Let me use both questions and compare:

If answe to B is yes, we still do not know the scale of cost difference. If you argue that a cent cheaper is enough to make it economically beneficial, the answer to B does not have to be "yes" because less pesticide is used anyway. So even if less expensive, it is still possible that the modified cotton will require pesticide that cost less.

If answer to E is yes, which means that these farmers use exceptional amount of pesticide, it indicates that these farmers are not among most farmers. Therefore, the argument does not hold no matter what.

lawyer_1

mindfree,

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that these farmers who tried modified cotton are not the representatives of most farmers? I can not see any relation between this quetion and the argument. The question is to evaluate whether switching to modified cotton would likely benefit the most farmers.The answer to the question whether these farmers are included in the most farmers just questions the farmer's report and does not weaken or even deny the argument.

mindfree

It is quite clear to me: if the experiment is done on a sample of farmers that are not representative of "most farmers", the conclusion that "most farmers" will have similar result will not hold.

For example: By switching to low carb diet, Tom does not lose much wieght. Therefore we conclude that "most people" will not lose weight on low carb diet. However, whether Tom has been consuming a "exceptionally" low carb diet will help evaluate the argumant. If yes, Tom is not among the "mist people" and his result is not typical. We cannot draw a conclusion on "most people" based on an experiment of unqiue person.

robertchu

"if the experiment is done on a sample of farmers that are not representative of "most farmers", the conclusion that "most farmers" will have similar result will not hold. "

Fully agree!  As mindfree explained, the answer to E is critical to the evaluation of the statement.  If the answer to E is true, then the original statement will fall apart.  Therefore E is the best answer.

The problem with B is that the meaning of "other crops" is ambiguous, as shown in this contentious discussion.  Therefore, B is not as good a answer as E.  

lawyer_1

1. I think the example you give is different from the question we discuss. Concerning with your example, we know Tom really does not loss much weight, wheras we do not whether switching to modified cotton really benefit the farmers who tried it, since we do not the different price and amount, as you say, and the scenario does not give further information. In fact, the question asks us to evaluate it with some extra conditions.

2. The question need to be evaluated is whether switching to modified cotton would likely benefit most farmers. If the answer to the farmers quetion is yes, then the farmers who tried modified cotton do not represent most farmers, as you say. If these farmers are not among the most farmers, we still do not know whether switching to modified cotton would likely benefit most farmers, since we do not know whether the farmers who tried the modified cotton benefit from the switching. If the answer is no, then the farmers can represent the most farmers, we also can not answer the above question whether switching would benefit the most farmers.

3. I think the reasoning behind the scenario is not from particular example to general conclusion. The scenario gives the farmers eample in order to show modified cotton save only a little insecticide, which is drawn to prove switching does not benifit the farmers.

mindfree

Regarding your point 2, I think we need to know what "evaluate" means. If E is true, my evaluation of the argument is that the argument does not hold because the premises cannot lead to the conclusion. Do I need to know for sure whether it will benefit most farmers? I do not think so.

If you really want to know whether it will benefit, you cannot come to any conclusion with answer to B. Because you are evaluating the quantitative aspect of the argument, you have to show the exact comparison, more or less. As I said earlier, you cannot say more or less whether your answer to B is Yes or No.

My evaluation is whether the argument is correct. I am not obligated to show whether it will benefit most farmers. My focus is on assessing the argument, not coming to a conclusion.