【每日逻辑练习第二季】【1-4】

CD用户825193

今天的逻辑题目都做对了，有点小开心，但是速度和理解力还是问题，要坚持啊～

刘腿腿eva

都好认真啊。。

kudoucliff

Truth: Institutions doesn’t use responsible power gradually lose it.
Argument: A business that wishes to retain its power must act responsibly.
Weaken: Some affairs can make business retain that power even though it doesn’t act responsibly.

4. Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to
recognize that avoiding social responsibility
leads to the gradual erosion of power. This is
Davis and Blomstrom’s Iron Law of
Responsibility: “In the long run, those who do
not use power in a manner which society
considers responsible will tend to lose it.” The
law’s application to human institutions
certainly stands confirmed by history. Though
the “long run” may require decades or even
centuries in some instances, society ultimately
acts to reduce power when society thinks it is
not being used responsibly. Therefore, a
business that wishes to retain its power as long
as it can must act responsibly.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
weakens the speaker’s argument?

(A) Government institutions are as subject to the
Iron Law of Responsibility as business
institutions.
Whether government institutions are subject to the Iron Law is irrelevant to business institutions.

(B) Public relations programs can cause society to
consider an institution socially responsible
even when it is not.
Correct answer, for it provides a possibility that institutions can be felt responsible without acting responsibly

(C) The power of some institutions erodes more
slowly than the power of others, whether they
are socially responsible or not.
The quickness of power erosion has no bearing on the author’s argument.

(D) Since no institution is eternal, every business
will eventually fail.
Irrelevant

(E) Some businesses that have used power in
socially responsible ways have lost it.
Irrelevant


BG: US manufacturers export A to Europe. However, European competitors may capture the shares belonging to US manufacturers now.
Premise: US demands for A increased, US manufacturers will benefit by maintaining significant product level.
Underlying reason: US A buyers prefer US products.

Truth 1: Certain vitamins and minerals in blood make a person’s lung function well.
Truth 2: Smokers don’t have lung function as well as that of nonsmokers.
Premise: Eating foods rich in certain vitamins and minerals can help smokers’ lung function better.
Assumption: Nutrients in such foods can be absorbed into blood.

Background: Comet S broke into fragments before entering J, but researches didn’t show how big the fragments were.
New finding: Trace of sulfur was found after fragments’ entry.
Common sense: Fragments don’t contain sulfur.
Premise: The cloud layer does.
Conclusion: Fragments penetrate atmosphere without burning up.

Background: U can be extracted from both M and S. Now is common in M for in S is expensive.
Premise: Cost of extracting U in S doesn’t lower down.
Argument: Extracting U in S is not commercially viable.
Evaluate: Whether the volume of extracting U in M will be large enough or sustainable.

annieliu830

2012年12月24日
1.
1）逻辑链
原因：长期看来，权力不使用就会失去
结论：如果一个企业想有效维持他的权力，他就必须有责任的去行动
2）推测
削弱
3）选项分析
A无关
B正确，即使没履行责任，却被社会认为履行了责任
C与速度无关
D无关，根本没讨论到履行责任
E无关

2.
1）逻辑链
类比题
因为：欧洲制造商迅速崛起，抓住了大部分欧洲市场。
所以：如果美国政府在美国大量生产，美国制造商就能继续保持较高的生产level
2）推测
加强两者相似的结论
已经告诉我结论是一样的了，那就是类比说前提一样囖
如同欧洲制造商更能抓住欧洲的市场一样，美国制造商也更能抓住美国的市场
3）选项分析
A无关
B削弱
C正确
D即为题中条件
E确实能加强结论，说明美国制造商能够维持较高的生产level，因为市场目前还没有怎么被开发的。但是于题目中的类比无关，因而不选。

3.
1）逻辑链
原因：在血液中维生素和矿物质成分越高，使得一个人的肺功能越好。
结论：要提高吸烟者的肺功能，就要使他们食物中的维生素和矿物质更加丰富。
2）推测
假设，其实也就是能加强结论……
从食物中吃到的维生素和矿物质能被人吸收进入血液中，补充gap
3）选项分析
A无关，与我要想提高吸烟者的肺功能这一目的无关
B这里的比较条件相同的是维生素和矿物质，而题目中的变量是维生素和矿物质，不符合要求
C有没有其他毛病无关
D无关
E正确

4.
2）推测
第一句证据
第二句结论，接在since的后半句，表所以，因而是结论
3）E

5
1）逻辑链
原因：从海水里提炼U的成本太高，比从矿里开采买的价格高太多
结论：在成本降低之前，这种获取U的方式经济上都不可行的
2）推测
Evaluation
市场上开采的U是不是很快就卖完了，没得卖了
3）选项分析
A正确，被开采完，没办法，即使成本高也得从海水里提炼了
B无关，这里比较的是开采成本，并不包括运输成本
C与结论的前提相矛盾，结论的前提是在成本降低之前，这里讨论的是如果成本降低了
D无关，数量多少无关，关键是成本
E无关

zxppx

4. Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to
recognize that avoiding social responsibility
leads to the gradual erosion of power. This is
Davis and Blomstrom’s Iron Law of
Responsibility: “In the long run, those who do
not use power in a manner which society
considers responsible will tend to lose it.” The
law’s application to human institutions
certainly stands confirmed by history. Though
the “long run” may require decades or even
centuries in some instances, society ultimately
acts to reduce power when society thinks it is
not being used responsibly. Therefore, a
business that wishes to retain its power as long
as it can must act responsibly.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most
weakens the speaker’s argument?

(A) Government institutions are as subject to the
Iron Law of Responsibility as business
institutions.

It strengthens the argument.
(B) Public relations programs can cause society to
consider an institution socially responsible
even when it is not.

It fails to talk about the relationship between the power and responsibility.

But please notice the words in the argument that ‘society considers responsible’. So it reveals that if the public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible, the programs can retain power, regardless it is really responsible.
(C) The power of some institutions erodes more
slowly than the power of others, whether they
are socially responsible or not.

It seems attractive. But there is no relationship with the speed about erosion. Besides, even though the speed is slower for some institutions, they are still losing their power, rather than retaining it.
(D) Since no institution is eternal, every business
will eventually fail.

It seems attractive, too. I think it is the best answer.

The conclusion permits that the business lose its power and eventually fail, so the answer is not right. Besides, it does not prove that if the institution is not responsible, the institution can still retain its power.
(E) Some businesses that have used power in
socially responsible ways have lost it.

Although it seems very attractive, it fails to prove that responsibility is not the necessary condition to the power, because it only proves that responsibility is not the sufficient condition.



1.

prep 07-13.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
United States manufacturers currently produce most of the world's solar-power generators--most of which are exported to Europe. However, European manufacturers are emerging and probably will ultimately capture much of the European market. The United States government is funding initiatives intended to encourage use of solar power within the United States. If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States, United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels, since __________.


(A) some United States manufacturers have been substantially increasing their output over the last several years

Firstly, some manufactures are unrepresentative. Secondly, it fails to prove the relationship between the increase in the demand and production levels.
(B) the efficiency of solar-power generators in converting energy from the Sun into electric power is not improving as fast as it once did

Actually, it seems to weaken the argument, rather than strengthen.
(C) just as European manufacturers enjoy certain competitive advantages in Europe, so do United States manufacturers in the United States

The comparison succeeds to predict that the US manufacturers will experience the similar situation just as the European manufacturers did. So it is the best answer.
(D) European governments are currently undertaking initiatives to stimulate the use of solar power within Europe

But we do not know the condition in US.
(E) the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited
But we do not know how about the further.



2.

prep 07-14.
The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.
Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?


(A) Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.

Even though the fact is true, it cannot be the assumption.
(B) The lung function of smokers whose diets are rich in those vitamins and minerals is generally better than that of nonsmokers with comparable diets.

The same to A.
(C) People whose diets are deficient in those vitamins and minerals do not typically have other health problems in addition to diminished lung function.

The same to A.
(D) Stopping smoking will not typically improve lung function more than any diet changes can.

The same to A.
(E) Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.

If smoking does introduce in the body chemicals that prevent the vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream, the argument cannot be reasonable. We must find something between the foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals and the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream. So it is the best answer.



3.

prep 07-15.
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Since the first is used to support the second, it is the best answer.



4.

prep 07-16. (27621-!-item-!-188;#058&003223)
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?

(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted

If it is true, people have to obtain uranium from seawater, no matter what the cost of doing so is.
(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined

It cannot help to evaluate the argument.
(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater

Even though it seems attractive, it is not better than A. Although there are really some technological advances can reduce the cost, however, if we do not degree, we still cannot evaluate the argument.
(D) Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land

It cannot help to evaluate the argument.
(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater

Similar cost does not help to evaluate the argument.

pennyz

50s
premise:the society will reduce the power of responsible user,if they eventually find that
(in the long run)
conclusion:company want to live must act responsibly
rephrase:it is longer to realize than company live
C
1:03

premise:if the initial can make great market in America
conclusion:the industry will be in significant producing level
          since it doesn't work in the premium condition for the low demand
E(not for sure)

37s
premise:the higher vitamin  c we contain,the better function of the lungs
conlusion:smoker can improve their lung function by take in more vitamin C
assumption:the smokers' lungs funtion badly,because they lack of vitamin C
E

1:27
solve a problem
problem:the size of the comet
premise:no sulfer in the comet,but in the outer atmosphere
       sulpher inner ,large enough not burned
E
50s
background:possible to get U from seawater,but too expensive
Premise:seek ways to get U from seawater
conclusion:can be economical
evaluation
U get from seawater is same as u we used now
C
对完全今天的大多数题型完全无感！说明漏洞很多！

pennyz

[quote]

1.

B: a company will erode its power if it does not act responsibly. The history of human institution can prove that.

P: the society will reduce the power of companies, if it thinks they are not responsible.

C: A company want to retain its power must be responsible.

Pre: A company actually is very responsible, but it still lose its power./ There is another reason why the company lose its power./ The analogy between companies and human institutions is not proper.

分析

A. This choice actually supports the argument because it prove that the analogy between human institutions and companies is reasonable.

B. Contender. If a company is not responsible but still gain power, then the conclusion may be weakened.

C. “Some companies” cannot stand for “all” companies, so this is an irrelevant comparison.

D. Irrelevant.

E. I think this choice is right. Because if a company is responsible but still lose its power, then the conclusion may be weakened.

错误原因分析：

1.没有注意一个是“wish to retain its power”，另外一个是”retain power”

2.没有发现这里是一个mistaken reversal of the conclusion.

conclusion：wish to retain power→ responsibility

那么reverse一下就是：responsibility→ wish to retain power(假设这里忽略wish的问题)

也就是说“负责”就足以带来“retain power”的结果，选项E中说，负责不足以带来保持实力，等于是weaken了reverse之后的argument，然而weaken mistaken reversal of the conclusion是不能起到weaken原来的argument的作用的。所以错

我发现我没有参透上次关于地毯的问题…反思…

收获：

The Rules of Reversibility

Certain Formal Logic relationships have a natural “reversibility.” Reversibility in the context of Formal Logic means that the relationship between the two variables has exactly the same meaning regardless of which “side” of the relationship is the starting point of your analysis. Statements that are non-reversible have a single “direction,” that is, the relationship between the two variables is not the same.

First, let us examine a relationship that is not reversible:

A→B

Starting from the A side, we know that every single A is a B. If we start at B, does the relationship reverse? That is, is every single B an A? No—that would be a Mistaken Reversal. From B’s side, we do not know if every B is an A. Instead, we only know that some B’s are A’s (this inherent inference will be discussed in greater detail in the Inherent versus Additive Inferences section). Thus, the arrow between A and B in the diagram above has a direction: the “all” travels only from A to B and it does not additionally travel from B to A. The relationship is therefore not reversible.

Now, let us examine a reversible relationship. “Some” is a classic example of a reversible statement.

Consider the following example:

A some B

Starting from A yields, “Some A’s are B’s” (A some B). Starting from B yields “Some B’s are A’s” (B some A). Because of the nature of “some,” these two statements are functionally identical (if some A’s are B’s, by definition some B’s must also be A’s; alternatively, if some A’s are B’s, then somewhere in the world there is an AB pair, and thus somewhere a B is with an A and we can conclude some B’s are A’s).

Reversible statements are easily identifiable because the relationship symbol is symmetrical and does not include an arrow pointing in a single direction. Non-reversible terms have arrow that point in just one direction.

Reversible Relationships Non-reversible Relationships

1.None (←∣→)

Some ( some )

Double-arrow (←→ )

2.All ( →)

Most ( most→ )

The beauty of reversible terms is that you can analyze the relationship from either “side” and still arrive at the same conclusion.

总结的非常好！！！赞一个

一粒黄豆。

3/8
1'09'
premise: not use power responsibly-->lose power
conclusion:act responsibly-->business retain power
prephrase: is this a good analogy between business and human institutions?
A strengthen
B irrelevant
C irrelevant
D out of scope
E correct  directly overturn the conclusion

40'
background: US and EU are competing in EU market, and EU are grow stronger
premise:US are going to lose part of EU market;US extend US market
conclusion:US can maintain production level
prephrase: assumption loss=extend
C

38'
premise:higher vitamins--> better lung; smokers' lung is worse than that of nonsmokers
conclusion:increase intake of vitamins-->better lung
prephrase:assumption:people will not take more vitamins just because they have better lungs.
E

1'02'
background:comet's fragments may have entered jupiter's atmosphere
premise:evidence+belive-->fragments have sulfur, fragments have no sulfur, layer below jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur
conclusion:some fragments entered
prephrase:the first part is an evidence and belief, the second part is conclusion, the first part support the second part.
E

27'
background:most u comes from mines
premise: we could extract u from seawater, but the cost is greater than the price of u in the world market
conclusion:untill the cost of extracting u be reduced, we will not use the method
prephrase:gap:will the price of u increase in the future?
A

一粒黄豆。

发现好多人第一题都错了也~~~
看了解释以后，觉得这个可以用一个经典的理论来解释！
大人通常告诉我们“你一定要好好学习，以后才会有出息”
如果我们说“可是北大毕业的也有找不到工作的啊”这样是无法削弱的
我们要说“可是同桌韩梅梅的爸爸以前是种地的啊，现在是大老板啊！”这个就可以削弱了！

因为 在大人的conclusion里“好好学习” 是“有出息”的必要条件，所以“不好好学习”会导致“没出息”，但是“好好学习”不一定导致“有出息”，所以E通过“结果不成立”--〉“条件不满足”是无法削弱的

这个真心有点难， E长的太像正确答案了，而且是强力直接推翻conclusion的那种，一般不会去细想到底行不行

okplokpl0714

精练：
Speaker:Cb should know avoiding social responsibility-->gradual erosion of power.
DB:not use power-->lose responsible.The law's application to human institutions<--->history
when social not being used responsibly--society ultimately acts to reduce power
CON:Must act responsibly-->retain power
Weaken猜测：有不需要responsibly就可以retain power的方法
A，D无关，BC两个选项看不懂啊。。。。。纠结。。
Answer：E
果然错了。。心里不是很确定。。。
答案E的点评中是说“攻击结论的逆否命题不能伤害到结论”么？？？求指教！！！
另外求答案B和C的翻译啊。。。语法还是不够好啊。。。TAT

逻辑链：
1.US生产商将大多数太阳能进口到E，但E的生产商人最终还是占有E的大部分市场。
US政府fund initiatives去鼓励太阳能在美国的使用。
如果这些initiatives成功提高了US太阳能需求，US生产商将很可能保持很高的生产水平，
Since-----
猜测：US的太阳能使用率上升空间很大。
排除法。。。无奈选C。。。
但是和我的猜测相距甚远啊。。求解释。。。。。

2.vm in the bloodstream higher----better lung.
  smokers' lung<nonsmokers
CON:intake vm--->improve lung smokers' lung
猜测：搭桥：smokers能够吸收vm
Answer：E

3.BF....BF的分析怎么写。。
Answer：E

4.
BG：Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines
PRE:  It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that uranium fetches on the world market
CON:  Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Evaluating猜测：extract uranium from seawater的性价比怎么样
Answer：C
好吧。。我的思维又出问题了。。。选A
这题还是有收获的，就是结论没有仔细读，老问题。。。
结论说：除非cost下降，否则from seawater无商业价值
选项A则排除了cost的因素，如果地面的uranium快没了，那么海里的肯定是有价值的。