费费逻辑 25 FeiFei 25

powers

There should be a greater use of gasohol. Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, and has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline. Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument above EXCEPT:



A.        Cars run less well on gasoline than they do on gasohol.

B.        Since less gasoline is needed with the use of gasohol, an energy shortage is less likely.

C.        Cars burn on the average slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline.

D.       Gasohol is cheaper to produce and hence costs less at the pump than gasoline.

E.        Burning gasoline adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can remove.



答案是C...我选的B

A: 没问题, 汽车用gasohol开的更好. 所以肯定更多人用gasohol.


B: gasohol能够降低发生能源短缺的可能性...无关选项...题目压根没有讨论能源短缺问题. 这题按照OG的标准选B很明显. 不能随便列一个gasohol的好处我就得选吧..比如, gasohol的颜色还可以更个性化选择, 星期一选白色,星期二用蓝色,星期三心情不好用黑色,情人节用红色.....拜托...


C: 我怎么看也觉得是支持. gasohol比gas稍微多多点油耗. 那么如果跑相同的公里数,gasohol的肯定就多,那么就greater use了.

想来想去,只想到唯一一个可以反驳但是完全不成立的理由: 如果油耗多.那人们就不愿意用了,    

我可以说:
1, 题目说了, 不是much more, 而是 slightly more, 注意是 slightly,就是稍微那么一点点.   只要东西好,有理智的人都能应该理解,而且应该能接受这么点点的slightly more. 不应该,也不可能是导致无人问津的原因. 就像现在给婴幼儿买奶粉,大多数人都去淘宝买进口的, 谁也不会去买三鹿或者其他国产的...例子可能不准确,但是你们懂的....

2. 稍微多一点点的油耗"slightly more"更好的加强了 greater use, 比如, 本来我一年要用 X升的gas, 现在开同样的公里数, 我要用1.1X升的gasohol. 正好是加强了.

3, 说油耗多就=不好的, 就=会没人用的人. 我觉得就too simple, so naive了. 难道只考虑油耗不考虑油价?   就算gasohol的油耗多10万倍,又怕什么呢? 他价格便宜了100万倍呢.(有可能还不要钱呢, 政府还倒贴你钱呢也说不定, 看题目广告打得这么动听...) 而且GMAT不就是考的你多维度思维吗. Total cost=volume x unit cost. 而不简简单单的 volume.



D: 生产成本 gasohol比gasoline 低.  这个是加强也没问题


E: 燃烧gasoline产生的二氧化碳 比 光合作用能吸收的多, 对比题目中说的 gasohol产生的二氧化碳 比 光合作用能吸收的少   这个也是加强没问题.

powers

顶起

houhaibo528

果断是C啊，C不是说的gasohol burn more 吗？

你所说的
3, 说油耗多就=不好的, 就=会没人用的人. 我觉得就too simple, so naive了. 难道只考虑油耗不考虑油价? 就算gasohol的油耗多10万倍,又怕什么呢? 他价格便宜了100万倍呢.(有可能还不要钱呢, 政府还倒贴你钱呢也说不定, 看题目广告打得这么动听...) 而且GMAT不就是考的你多维度思维吗. Total cost=volume x unit cost. 而不简简单单的 volume.

3字：想多了

就因为BURN more了，所以weaken了，所以没有strengthen

powers

果断是C啊，C不是说的gasohol burn more 吗？

你所说的
3, 说油耗多就=不好的, 就=会没人用的人. 我觉得就too simple, so naive了. 难道只考虑油耗不考虑油价? 就算gasohol的油耗多10万倍,又怕什么呢? 他价格便宜了100万倍呢.(有可能还不要钱呢, 政府还倒贴你钱呢也说不定, 看题目广告打得这么动听...) 而且GMAT不就是考的你多维度思维吗. Total cost=volume x unit cost. 而不简简单单的 volume.

3字：想多了

就因为BURN more了，所以weaken了，所以没有strengthen

-- by 会员 houhaibo528 (2011/10/13 10:10:16)

因为BURN more了,There should be a greater use of gasohol.

取非的话, 如果burn less了...怎么可能会 greater use of gasohol呢?? 我不知道how much less,假如1/2, 1/3, 除非世界人口,短期内翻翻,才有可能达到

sandychen168

楼主，这是strengthen题，不是assumption题，不用取非~

powers

楼主，这是strengthen题，不是assumption题，不用取非~

-- by 会员 sandychen168 (2011/10/14 21:01:28)

取非不取非只不过是技巧问题,罢了. 不过, 你觉得这里是不用取非,还是不能取非?
如果是不用取非,是因为直接一眼可以判断出来....就像我分析的1,2,3,我解题的时候本来也没取非, 因为我觉得很明显.  后来之所以取非,只不过是用另一种手段,从另一个角度,更清晰的说明我的意思  

如果是不能取非,经赐教为何不可.

powers

让我们不要纠结于解题技巧. 你觉得我的分析的在实质上有哪些不对请指出

sdcar2010

B strengthens the conclusion (There should be a greater use of gasohol) because it gives an extra reason to use gasohol. It is common sense that energy shortage is NOT a good thing to have. So anything that minimize the risk to have such a shortage is welcome.

C on the other hand would weaken the argument in that it points to the possibility that greater use of gasohol would lead to more emission of carbon monoxide on the whole, another common sense defect that a GMAT student would avoid.

powers

B strengthens the conclusion (There should be a greater use of gasohol) because it gives an extra reason to use gasohol. It is common sense that energy shortage is NOT a good thing to have. So anything that minimize the risk to have such a shortage is welcome.

C on the other hand would weaken the argument in that it points to the possibility that greater use of gasohol would lead to more emission of carbon monoxide on the whole, another common sense defect that a GMAT student would avoid.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/10/15 8:19:24)

B - basically you are saying any choice that might be a solution to energy shortage in any CR, MUST BE RIGHT, no matter whether is mentioned in/ relevant to the original question, as long as it has a thing to defeat energy shortage/ global warming.

c - one of the things, probably the most important, I learned in GMAT is that you don't assume anything.
How much gasohol emits, we don't know, as an engineer myself I truly without shame to say: I really don't know.  I don't expect other ppl know that.

How much less emission than gas, we don't know neither.

Is it possible that although it has less gas/mileage performance, but it still out perform gas?

for example, let's say gas -10L/km,  Gasohol 20L/km(that's a lot than slightly more, lol, but whatever), emission, gas - 100 (whatever the unit is, I don't know)/L, Gasohol - 1 unit/L, simple math: if you drive 10km you use 100L gas, 200L gasohol, but you only emit 200 unit with gasohol compare to 10000 if you use gas.   If you say my calculation is wrong, I put much smaller number for gasohol emission.... maybe, how about you do it? but please keep this in mind: there is one constrain, which is the fact given by the original question,  you can only set the gasohol's unit/L so high that the product of L/KM and Unit/L for gasohol can never exceed than that of the gas.

Actually, to answer the question above, no, it's not just possible, it will out perform gas no mater what you assume, because it's a given fact, I don't know where (probably NASA) they got that conclusion, but technically/scientifically we just can not doubt that.

Let me tell you what I know of:

People don't use things that emit? clearly not true, that's what I know. People use clean energy, as long as it's clean, no matter what? that's also not true, and that's what I know.  

AND I ALSO KNOW THIS: Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis.
Doesn't really matter how much "slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline"  as it's already been stated, it simply will "add no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis."

if you want to talk about common sense, lets talk about common scene. I know how each individual weights his/her personal fiance issue against big global environment issue. Answer is way out! people are pragmatic, even selfish (hey, that's the game theory all about, eh?), when it comes to their own money!  Most, if not all, of the people in the US still don't buy the green movement shit that UN or other NGOs been advocating for years and years. That's why, at least one of the reasons, we have Tea Party moment going on right now in the US.

sdcar2010

LZ, as an engineer, you should understand the following sentence in the argument:

Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, and has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline.

Why are you talking about L/km for gasoline and gasohol??? Further, we use mpg, or mile per gallon, in the states.

The point is that the passage promotes the use of gasohol based on the presumed benefit of REDUCING carbon monoxide emission, NOT how many miles a vehicle will drive on a gallon of fuel. Therefore, C) weakens the argument because it is NOT true that using gasohol will reduce carbon monoxide emission.

As a GMAT taker, READ the passage plus the answer choices and nothing else.

Finally, it is NOT true that when answering CR questions, you CANNOT bring in outside information. ALL strengthen and weaken questions allow NEW info and COMMON SENSE. But the NEW info has to be in the answer choices, not thoughts in your head.