SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（十六）Practice questions on Principles

nobody910

2. Everyone at last month’s 城管会 agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized 四合院 on 长安街 posed a threat to the safety of Peking. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the 四合院 torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound 四合院, since Peking City had established a fund to help people in need of housing purchase and refurbish such 四合院 . The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by refurbishing the四合院 were wrong.

B) When there are two proposals for solving a city problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.


could you explain to us why B) is the right answer? Thanks.

nobody910

As for #3, your reasoning,

C) does just that because the word "solely." Even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. Something other than overbooking seats caused Ming to take the second flight.

I agree that even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. But shouldn't it be what E) instead of C) states?

sdcar2010

There are two proposals: one is to torn down the house while the other is to remodel the house. However, if you torn down a house, you would prevent the other choice from happening. Then according to answer choice B), the "torn-down" choice should not be chosen.

2. Everyone at last month’s 城管会 agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized 四合院 on 长安街 posed a threat to the safety of Peking. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the 四合院 torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound 四合院, since Peking City had established a fund to help people in need of housing purchase and refurbish such 四合院 . The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by refurbishing the四合院 were wrong.

B) When there are two proposals for solving a city problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.


could you explain to us why B) is the right answer? Thanks.

-- by 会员 nobody910 (2012/2/5 11:31:41)

sdcar2010

This question is the toughest among the four questions, partially due to it long and convoluted expressions.

The key is to analyze the answer choice TOGETHER with the question stem:

For C), the complete statement is:
东航 is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.

According to C), a necessary condition for 东航 to refund the passenger is that there is NO other reason for the passenger to take a later flight. However, we know that the passenger has another reason not to take the flight. Therefore the reply by Ming is effective: the airline does not have to pay the refund.

For E), the complete statement is:
东航 is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.

This does not make sufficient argument for Ming's reply because if you follow the logic chain, the airline has to give the passager refund.

As for #3, your reasoning,

C) does just that because the word "solely." Even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. Something other than overbooking seats caused Ming to take the second flight.

I agree that even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. But shouldn't it be what E) instead of C) states?

-- by 会员 nobody910 (2012/2/5 11:41:33)

nobody910

This question is the toughest among the four questions, partially due to it long and convoluted expressions.

The key is to analyze the answer choice TOGETHER with the question stem:

For C), the complete statement is:
东航 is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.

According to C), a necessary condition for 东航 to refund the passenger is that there is NO other reason for the passenger to take a later flight. However, we know that the passenger has another reason not to take the flight. Therefore the reply by Ming is effective: the airline does not have to pay the refund.

For E), the complete statement is:
东航 is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight.

This does not make sufficient argument for Ming's reply because if you follow the logic chain, the airline has to give the passager refund.

As for #3, your reasoning,

C) does just that because the word "solely." Even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. Something other than overbooking seats caused Ming to take the second flight.

I agree that even if the first flight had not been overbooked, Ming could not have taken off anyway. But shouldn't it be what E) instead of C) states?

-- by 会员 nobody910 (2012/2/5 11:41:33)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/5 12:34:16)

Thanks! By the way, could you give us some suggestions on how to train our eyes and minds on seeing such complicated sentence like this?

justeva

sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tough!!!!! TOT

812966141

这是最后一个了，老规矩，先顶再看。谢谢你，是你让我知道啥是英语逻辑。

mxue

Thanks for the posts. It is very helpful! I still have a question about problem 3 even if you have explained it multiple times.
Why is A incorrect?
A says that if the only reason that a passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the original flight, then 东航 is morally obligated. In Ming's case, overbooking the flight is not the only reason, because the flood is a second reason, therefore 东航 is not morally obligated. Can you tell me what is wrong with this reasoning here?

Thanks a lot!

3. Li Ming: I was recently denied a seat on a 东航for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the 东航 had overbooked that flight. Since I was forced to fly the next available flight, which did not depart until 4 hours later, I missed an important date with my sexy girlfriend and the possibility of night-long romance. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to flood at the airport, 东航 should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight.

Wang Bing: 东航 is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight you reserved, you would have missed your important date anyway since your sexy girlfriend was with another attractive date. She overbooked as well.

A principle that, if established, justifies Bing’s response to Ming is that 东航 is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations

A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the original flight
B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a late flight other than the original flight’s being canceled due to flood at the airport
C) only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight
D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were that the original flight is canceled due to a flood at the airport
E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight

flonacui

UP

晓野的野

principles神马的果然很绕啊啊啊啊啊