Citizens of Parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Which of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?
A. Similar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening. B. The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism. C. Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home. D. Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon. E. The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.
正解是 B
请问 1."年轻人犯的罪大部分是小偷及破坏公物"这个条件要怎么weaken argument? 2.段落里they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens一句该如何翻译 特别是最后2个字 3.E为什么不对? 很多课后的program都是到6点 不就意味着青少年在六点以前是不会在外游荡的吗? 这不是可以weaken题目最后一句话most crimes committed by local teenagerstake place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
之所以E错误是因为E同题目中的结论没有关系。原文结论是让青少年六点之后在家（namely，in the late evening），无法减少公民对当地的担心。注意这个主题“六点之后在家”。E选项就好比说：我还有一个计划让他们三点到六点在学校。这个计划有没有可能降低crime rate？绝对有。However，这个计划和六点在家没有任何关系。属于我驳倒你后你想出来的“totally different program”。
However，if it can reduce the possibility that the teenagers come out between 3pm to 6pm to keep teenagers at home in the late evening，then E is a correct answer！
Ron‘s point as follows：
nah. (e) is wrong because it's completely irrelevant to the actual issue treated in the passage.
note the passage's conclusion:
Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizensthe passage is solely concerned with the effect of the new measures. therefore, we don't care if there are other programs that might have a mitigating effect on the crime rate.
-----
一个学生的疑惑：
i understand why the right answer is right, but i am not sure if i am buying the logic above.
how is E irrelevant to the issue? the issue is the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. the argument states that the measures enacted by the gov are unlikely to be succesfull because most crimes are committed btw 3-6pm. clearly the measure enacted by the gov. is a subpar solution since most crimes are committed in the afternoon. if there was another measure enacted that would help bridge the gap and keep teens out of trouble, the argument would be weakened.
---------
另外一个staff的回复：
George, this is a complicated argument because we are weakening the idea that something won't work (kind of a double negative). Let's review the argument:
"Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm."
Let's pick out the conclusion, premise, and assumptions. Italics below are mine but help emphasize what you should look for in arguments--change in wording!
Conclusion: Late evening curfew won't reduce serious crimes committed by teenagers.
WHY?
Premise: Most crimes committed by teenagers occur between 3-6pm.
Assumption: Many of the crimes committed during 3-6pm are serious crimes.
We want to weaken this conclusion, and say that the curfew WILL in fact reduce the number of serious crimes committed by teenagers. Generally to weaken a conclusion we want to attack the assumption. Notice how answer choice B does this nicely.
Your answer choice, E, says that teenagers will now have something to do after school. This doesn't help us establish that the curfew WILL in fact reduce crimes, since after school is a different time of the day from the curfew. Make sense?
以上的感觉可以参考下面题目：
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. （P）Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However,（P） a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, （P）provided this technology is effective,（C） those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
（注意文中说的是Fear about the possibility that construction of pipeline may cause pollution. 反驳的观点也是针对这个Object进行的，technology for preventing leaks & technology is effective 都是stand in line with “construction of pipeline may cause pollution” 至于其他的renewed pollution，none of my concern.就算你拿出来也和我说的无关。和上面的题目中的E很像吧。
B. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
C. The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into the water by pipeline construction.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-12-21 19:11:35
收藏
收藏
