ChaseDream
搜索
查看: 40919|回复: 26

超级困惑:假设怎么会成了充分条件?

[复制链接]
发表于 2004-8-3 10:55:00 | 显示全部楼层

超级困惑:假设怎么会成了充分条件?

last:


The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. As Bell’s president is well aware, however, in order to increase the worker’s wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries. So, some of Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold.


The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?


(C) The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.


这道题,子公司出售,是涨工资的必要条件,涨工资是不罢工的必要条件。因此子公司出售是不罢工的必要条件。不罢工 推出 子公司出售,那假设:不罢工 成了充分条件了。可是书上说假设应该是结论的必要条件啊!


这里的推理是陈向东的书中给出的。

发表于 2004-8-3 12:09:00 | 显示全部楼层

陈向东的那本书建议不要看他的推理。只做他的题目和看他的翻译。不然越看越胡涂。比如这一题其实你自己做起来应该是很容易的。

~strike->increase wages,increase wages->sell off。所以~strike->sell off

结论是sell off。一下子就看出来没有前提啊。什么前提都没给就推出一定会sell off?

如果工人们还是会strike,那么说明可能没有sell off(~sell off->strike。不sell off工人一定会strike);也可能sell off了但是没有达到工人的要求,还是会strike(逆命题推不出来,sell off推不出一定~strike)。

 楼主| 发表于 2004-10-20 11:24:00 | 显示全部楼层

Fast cycle time→消除瓶颈和延迟→所有的事情第一时间都正确了

那么答案的推理应该是:1, fast cycle 无法实现→瓶颈无法消除→ 产品有错误

还是:2, 产品有错误→瓶颈无法消除→fast cycle无法实现。

如果推理是2,那么答案的推理和原文 reason 的推理一样,如果推理是1,那么答案的推理和reason 的推理刚好相反, 请问究竟是那个呢?

 楼主| 发表于 2004-10-20 11:26:00 | 显示全部楼层
假设是对原文的支持,那么有问题的假设也是对原文的支持吗?
发表于 2004-10-20 12:45:00 | 显示全部楼层

A confused question! many nn discussed before:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=28032&page=15

发表于 2004-10-20 18:42:00 | 显示全部楼层
以下是引用ponny在2004-10-20 11:24:00的发言:

Fast cycle time→消除瓶颈和延迟→所有的事情第一时间都正确了




那么答案的推理应该是:1, fast cycle 无法实现→瓶颈无法消除→ 产品有错误



还是:2, 产品有错误→瓶颈无法消除→fast cycle无法实现。


如果推理是2,那么答案的推理和原文 reason 的推理一样,如果推理是1,那么答案的推理和reason 的推理刚好相反, 请问究竟是那个呢?


结论是什麽?没结论如何选。对于楼主的题,这是JUSTIFY CONCLUSION题,用公式检验一下就知道答案了:前提+正确答案=结论

 楼主| 发表于 2004-10-20 19:35:00 | 显示全部楼层

不好意思,我贴错地方了。

本来应该贴到 OG73那里的

73. “Fast cycle time” is a strategy of designing a manufacturing organization to eliminate bottlenecks and delays in production. Not only does it speed up production, but it also assures quality. The reason is that the bottlenecks and delays cannot be eliminated unless all work is done right the first time.

The claim about quality made above rests on a questionable presupposition that ?

(A) any flaw in work on a product would cause a bottleneck or delay and so would be prevented from occurring on a “fast cycle” production line

(B) the strategy of “fast cycle time” would require fundamental rethinking of product design

(C) the primary goal of the organization is to produce a product of unexcelled quality, rather than to generate

profits for stockholders

(D) “fast cycle time” could be achieved by shaving time off each of the component processes in production

cycle

(E) “fast cycle time” is a concept in business strategy that has not yet been put into practice in a factory

答案A

发表于 2004-10-20 20:49:00 | 显示全部楼层

设计这道题的人心眼很坏。搞了一个充分必要的前提,很迷惑人,实际却没用到,是个附加前提,或者说是背景知识。实际的推理(相对于问题:问题问的是质量)是:因为“Fast cycle time”设计用于消除生产中的 bottlenecks and delays ,所以该措施能确保质量。其实这句话就是说该措施能确保质量。A说任何错误能被该措施阻止。将A取非,有些错误不能给该措施阻止,则结论(该措施能确保质量)当然不能成立。其实这道题作者在耍语言游戏,绕着说,其实没什麽逻辑推理。也没什麽前提,直接有个结论,这种题的假设答案就是将该答案换句话说一遍。其实你不觉得结论和A其实意思差不多吗。

发表于 2004-10-20 22:09:00 | 显示全部楼层

not strike---> increase wage---> sell subsidiies


发表于 2004-10-20 22:21:00 | 显示全部楼层
Paopa your reasoning is right here, but here, as you mentioned above, not strike is a sufficient condition to the conclusion sell subsidiaries, not a necessary condition to the conclusion. In assumption questions, the answer should be a required condition to the conclusion, not sufficient condition.
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-20 22:23:34编辑过]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream ( 京ICP证101109号 )

GMT+8, 2019-11-15 23:10 , Processed in 0.119253 second(s), 6 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2019 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部