[讨论]再论gwd-3-32

ztlbox

Q32:

Newspaper editorial:

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

1. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
   



2. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
   



3. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
   



4. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
   



5. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.
   

呵呵，这道题吸引了众多nn的讨论,以下引用两位NN的论述

This is an interesting question.  To effectively solve CR, one must to analyze an argument's line of reasoning(LoR).  Actually there are two arguments here, that of the governor’s and that of the passage author’s.  

LoR of the governor: deny college course --> make prison harsher --> reduce crime rate.
LoR of the author: inmates who take courses will commit fewer crimes after release  --> denying them course will lead to more crimes by them after release --> governor's action won't reduce crime rate.

Since the question ask for assumption of the author’s argument, only the author’s LoR is relevant.

Now let's look at A, which says "Not being able to ... is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime ..." (不能读书不会deter任何人)  You probably can already tell that this is not relevant to the author's LoR (although it's relevant to governor's LoR).  So, choice A is not relevant.  You don’t even needs to try deny test here.

Now let’s look at C.  C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released."  Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released."  In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release.  This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart.  So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.

Two side notes:

Deny test:  "To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, one can try the denial test (DT): simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart.  If it does, the choice is a necessary assumption." -- from Kaplan.

The opposite of A is "Not being able to ... might actually deter some from a crime ..." (不能读书有可能deter一些人).  而不是 “Not being able to ... is likely to deter everyone from a crime ...” (不能读书有会deter所有人).  See the subtle differences between them?

It should be C. A simple test: A indicates that taking the courses has no impact on reducing crime rate. This is apparent opposite to the argument, in which the author is trying to say that by denying the access to such courses, the governor will not achieve his goal of reducing crime rate, indicating that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate.

C is clearly the answer in this question. The argument is trying to point out that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate. C indicates that it was not because people are already less likely to commit crime when they take the courses.

我认为A是正确的。

A的推理为 not being able to take course------->unlikely to deter crime 其逆否命题为

likely to deter crime---->able to take course，take course 是必要条件，符合加设定义。

原文推理：taken such courses ----〉far fewer crimes overall than other inmates

C是不正确的: The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released

请看原文Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses

这两个实际的范围是不一样的，C中是主动选课的犯人，文中是they formerly had to college-level, 所有的犯人，无论主被动。

already, 这只表明现在的情况，说明不了任何将来的问题，尽管现在是这样，那以后犯人都受神灵感召，无论上不上课，都打死也不犯罪了，也是很有肯能的呀，C答案又没说现在会影响将来。

一点高见一点高见，恳请迅速用板砖把我打蒙，把我打蒙。

iamweng

up,同意楼上的看法，从论证的角度上看，这是一个演绎认证，A看上去要清晰些。

mindfree

"A的推理为 not being able to take course------->unlikely to deter crime 其逆否命题为

likely to deter crime---->able to take course，take course 是必要条件，符合加设定义。"

This is outrageous! You are not trying to understand what the reasoning is but simplying adding or subtracting "not". Let me use a simple example to counter your reasoning:

"His voting for us is unlike to change the election result" ==> "The result changes --> he did not vote for us"?! This is your "reasoning".

Also, why does "逆否命题" have anything to do in an assumption question?

My recommendation to you is to understand what the sentence means before you work on the question. If you understand what A means, you can rule it out right away.

ztlbox

呵呵，终于有人排砖了。

既然原命题和逆否命题是等价的，为什么逆否命题不能用于判断呢？你说我说的不对，那A的逆否命题应该是什么？

OK，用DENY TEST

A 不能读书---〉不能阻止任何人犯罪 DENY TEST 不能读书---〉可以阻止一些人犯罪。 这与author的论点正好是相反地吧。

C. It should be C. A simple test: A indicates that taking the courses has no impact on reducing crime rate. This is apparent opposite to the argument, in which the author is trying to say that by denying the access to such courses, the governor will not achieve his goal of reducing crime rate, indicating that taking the courses help reduce the crime rate

C says "...inmates who chose to take courses were not already less likely ... to commit crimes after being released."  Deny C, we get "...inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely... to commit crimes after being released."  In other words, denying them course will not lead to more crimes by them after release.  This directly contradicts the author’s LoR and cause the argument to fall apart.  So, C is a necessary assumption of the author.

黄线部分是C取非后的意思-----选课的同志在释放后犯罪的几率小，那这是不是正是author的观点呢，如果一个命题取非后符合author的推理，那它的原命题怎么可能是假设呢?

xiang wo kai pao

daxing

支持选A。C的意思是： 读书的人比不读的犯罪不少可能性（也就是读书的人等于或大于不读的人在犯罪可能上）。而本题所需的假设是：读书使犯罪可能减少。

携隐

啊？？这个题目怎么可能是A呢，当然是C啊。很典型的排除他因啊。结论是：读书的人犯罪率相对低，暗含的意思是，是读书（而不是其他）使得他们出来后犯罪率相对较低。要支持这个结论，假设就是：只有读书这一个原因影响犯罪率，没有其他原因，C不正好符合吗。C说的是选择读书的人并不是本身就比别人犯罪率低，是读书才使他们与别人区别开来啊。

我记得这种题目应该是ETS比较喜欢出的类型，只是大多见于削弱：比如说一个试验结果是，参加了某某某培训的孩子比别的孩子聪明表现好，结论是，这种类型的培训能够提高孩子的智力，改善他们的表现。要求削弱，答案就是：这群参加试验的孩子本身就比别人聪明。这道题目不是一样嘛，如果这些犯人本身就比别的犯人犯罪率低，那读书对他们出去后的犯罪率的影响就不可评估了啊。

携隐

box，我觉得你对“假设应该是必要条件”理解错了。这句话的意思是，答案整个都是必要条件，而不是你把一个答案分成前提结论，然后把答案里的那段结论拿来当必要条件啊。原文的结论又不是deter crime，原文的focus是读书可以减少犯罪，focus是读书。

rhod

I agree with Mindfree that we have to understand the meaning of the logic question.

Do not mechanically use some logic principles. Mindfree already gave us a good counter-example.

sunshining

携隐mm的解释很精辟啊，我也觉得奇怪干吗在讨论A， C是og里面ETS最喜欢出的题了  ，就是否定比较的基础 ‘本身’已经怎么怎么样了

zhanghuiyong

这道题我认为毫无疑问应该是C。有几个地方要特别注意读懂：

1、原文的Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.

2、原文的since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates

3、A选项的unlikely to deter anyone from a crime。。。

4、C选项的The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to。。。

分析A为什么不对：A的假设重点在deter这个词上，实际上原文反对意见根本不关心念书是否deter犯罪上，而是关心念书是否能让人出狱后减少犯罪上。并且真正deter犯罪的，是getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher，侧重点不在是否让罪犯念书上。A选项的anyone，也有错误选项的特征。

C选项为什么对：原文反对意见的since从句部分，表明了反对意见的言下之意是说governor的措施会使inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates不可能实现，也就是说，反对者认为deny罪犯读书，会影响减少犯罪的正面效果，这就是题干所说的假设。再看这个假设为什么对应到C选项：原文的Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses清楚表明罪犯原来是可以念书的，或者说罪犯已经念过一段时间的书了，deny翻译成“中断”可能更准确。千万不要忽视C选项的already，它实际上和原文的formerly had 相对应，结合原文，C选项可以翻译为：可以念书的罪犯，(在deny或中断念书之前)还没有达到能够出狱后比其它罪犯少犯罪(的程度)。也就是说，如果现在deny这些罪犯念书，他们不会比其它罪犯出狱后少犯罪，就不能达到governor减少犯罪的目的，这正是原文反对者所持观点。

用Not Weaken验证C选项：如果罪犯在被终止念书前(念的书)已经可以达到出狱后比其它罪犯少犯罪(的程度)，也就是说，如果deny罪犯读书，不影响罪犯(已经)读过的书的正面效果，则反对者Since从句部分内容就不能成立，其结论也就不成立。也就是说，这种情况下，是否deny罪犯读书，已经无关罪犯被deny前所读书的正面效果了，不影响措施的有效性了。

写了一堆，最后感叹：此题太经典了！

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-11-7 10:43:57编辑过]