ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: liaokangyu
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-II-16題求助

[复制链接]
11#
发表于 2007-2-18 21:21:00 | 只看该作者
12#
发表于 2008-10-11 14:43:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用jandjshi在2006-3-28 6:01:00的发言:

A is actually against what aurthor said. A weakens the conclusion.

investigators should find out why the (pilot) error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs => (pilot) error is a factor of in most accidents => but problems in airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs caused (pilot) errors => therefore the root problem is problems in airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs.

13#
发表于 2008-12-10 23:04:00 | 只看该作者

还是不懂。。。为什么A不行?

如果Pilot是主要的原因,那么analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs 就是无用的。因此这个地方的假定前提就是pilot不是主因,其他那几个是主因。

14#
发表于 2009-7-18 10:35:00 | 只看该作者
i donnot agree that A weaken the conclusion

do not mix the two errors in the passage : errors made by pilot and errors made by other factors such as design and training

nonetheless, A is still not correct since whether errors made by pilot is signigicant is unrelevant, passage does not mention that if it is insignificant ,then investagor will not do anything
15#
发表于 2009-10-14 09:43:00 | 只看该作者
那个无数高手讨论过的帖子在哪呀。。。??
16#
发表于 2009-10-22 19:35:00 | 只看该作者

文中说why the error was made 表明承认了pilot 的error,只是进一步分析pilot error 的原因有 design management  and pilot training.

所以A不对,且文中更本没程度的比较,所以contributing 推不出来

17#
发表于 2009-10-22 19:37:00 | 只看该作者
文中也没提pilot 的信息,只知道会make error 所以E推不出来
18#
发表于 2009-10-23 14:25:00 | 只看该作者

Here is my thinking to solve the problem.

First, the conclusion of the paragraph is "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident."

"Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program" is the premise.

The question asks for the "presupposition" of the argument which means the answer needs to best support the conclusion. So, if we look at the answers one by one.

A: Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. - When putting A and the other premise together, it kinna works but the 2 premises conflict eath other. "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error..." tells us that clearly the author thinks pilot error is a contributing factor but she'd rather focus on the root cause.

D: Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. - When putting together with the other premise, articulate a clear logic which is "Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents" so, "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error (which would not help fix the problem to happen again), investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program." => "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident. "

My humble opinion. Feedback is welcomed.

19#
发表于 2010-4-18 11:15:15 | 只看该作者
Here is my thinking to solve the problem.
First, the conclusion of the paragraph is "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident."
"Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program" is the premise.
The question asks for the "presupposition" of the argument which means the answer needs to best support the conclusion. So, if we look at the answers one by one.
A: Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. - When putting A and the other premise together, it kinna works but the 2 premises conflict eath other. "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error..." tells us that clearly the author thinks pilot error is a contributing factor but she'd rather focus on the root cause.
D: Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. - When putting together with the other premise, articulate a clear logic which is "Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents" so, "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error (which would not help fix the problem to happen again), investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program." => "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident. "
My humble opinion. Feedback is welcomed.
-- by 会员 unparadise (2009/10/23 14:25:00)




顶!!!
20#
发表于 2014-8-14 22:39:34 | 只看该作者
unparadise 发表于 2009-10-23 14:25
**** 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽 ****

非常精辟,谢谢!!!
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|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-28 07:50
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部