超级困惑：假设怎么会成了充分条件？

leeon

Faint!  I'm sure I typed "Paopao" in the above post. But it always show as Paopa whatever I changed.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-20 22:26:54编辑过]

paopao

leeon, i am still confused . Hope that lawyer can give some explanation .

Leeon, good luck.

lawyer_1

关键明白该题的类型，这是JUSTIFY CONCLUSION题型，也可以说是充分性题型，也就是那个选项使结论合理推出。其TEST为：前提+答案=结论。

原文的前提：NOT STRIKE---〉INCREASE WAGE----〉SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES

结论：SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES

要得出该结论，必须有个推理起点。其实前提的推理链中。NOT STRIKE 和INCREASE WAGE都可作推理起点，作答案。举个例，如果我GMAT考800分，我就能上哈佛大学。所以我上哈佛大学。这个结论要合理推出，当然需要假设我GMAT考800分。

paopao

lawyer 谢谢你 今天才明白假设的充分型

lawyer 如果有时间 能否多介绍做逻辑题的基础知识 如这种题是假设的充分型 你做的一系列的贴子对我帮助非常非常大

如果能真正的明白题型 我想就不会有无谓的confused

另外请教一下

这种假设的充分型我感觉仍是必要条件 不是充分条件

因为我将其取非 strike那么逻辑链就推不出来 这证明这仍是必要条件不是充分条件

但这种题型 not strke--> INCREASE WAGE----〉SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES

感觉又是充分条件 这是怎么回事呢

是不是充分必要条件呢

谢谢

lawyer_1

你可以说NOT STIKE既是结论的充分条件，又是必要条件。从假设是原文结论的必要条件来说，即从原文前提得出该结论的角度讲，NOT STIKE是结论SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES的必要条件。即如果NOT STRIKE不成立，原文没有了推理起点，单纯 not strke--> INCREASE WAGE----〉SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES这个因果链是得不出结论SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES的。这个道理就像我上面举的上哈佛的例子一样。这点很容易和前提的因果链not strke--> INCREASE WAGE----〉SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES混淆，以为否命题也成立。不对，没有NOT STRIKE，结论得不出的原因是没有推理起点，而不是否命题。这点也许就是你CONFUSE的地方。从原文前提的因果链讲，NOT STIKE是SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES的充分条件。NOT STIKE的双重角色导致了你的CONFUDE。所以不是在原文前提的因果链中NOT STIKE既是充分条件，又是必要条件。而是不同场合的巧合。在因果链中NOT STRIKE还是SELL OFF SUBSIDARIES的充分条件。在得出结论的角度，NOT STRIKE是结论的必要条件。

最后，记住必要型也好，充分型也好，都是结论得出的必要条件。

lawyer_1

你所能碰到的题型基本在“考试时如何作逻辑题”中全部列出。GMAT中的BOLDFACE其实就是ROLE题，就是某句话在原文的作用。

paopao

明白了 谢谢lawyer

leeon

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

I think this question is  not the same as the assumption question in GMAT. This question asked us to add a sufficient condition to cause the conclusion. Usually we do this question according to our former thinking to answer. Thus, we all made the mistake.

Thx, lawyer!

wall_street

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

lawyer,不知道我这样理解对不对？

这里有两环关系：1。 will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages   

increase wages→not go on strike; not increase wage→go on strike.这等于说一个命题和他的否命题同时成立，两者之间是一个充分必要关系。所以，这样的关系成立not go on strike→increase wage。

2。in order to increase the worker’s wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries     

一个充分关系 increase wage→sell off subsidiaries.

现在题目里说。SO, THE SUBSIDIARIES ARE SOLD...要这个结论成立，则increase wage必须成立，继而not go one strike也必须成立。

welkin

以下是引用wall_street在2005-4-4 21:14:00的发言：

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

lawyer,不知道我这样理解对不对？

这里有两环关系：1。 will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages   

increase wages→not go on strike; not increase wage→go on strike.这等于说一个命题和他的否命题同时成立，两者之间是一个充分必要关系。所以，这样的关系成立not go on strike→increase wage。

2。in order to increase the worker’s wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries     

一个充分关系 increase wage→sell off subsidiaries.

现在题目里说。SO, THE SUBSIDIARIES ARE SOLD...要这个结论成立，则increase wage必须成立，继而not go one strike也必须成立。

不好意思，我来乱讲一下，我觉得你红字的部分又问题，。 will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages   并无法得到increase wages→not go on strike，说白了就是这句话是说，不加工资就一定罢工，但没有说加了工资就不罢工了（有可能加了工资但没有满足其他条件，罢工还是会进行）