og12 114 求一个小确认~~~小菜抱拳啦~~~~~！！！！

bob9603

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?



(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论


[c2]无关


[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系


[c4]Support


[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。


[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

ainiAnnie

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward（因）. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently（果）.
即 1930年以前宾馆的质量比1930年以后建造的宾馆质量好→1930年以前的carpenter 的技艺高于1930年以后的。要求削弱：即1930年以前的carpenter 技艺不高于1930以后的 或者 低于1930年以后的。

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in
other structures, such as houses and stores.（超出范围，无关）
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.（容纳的人多不代表其质量好）
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.（排除一个造成差距的客观因素，更倾向与主观因素，故support）
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.（support）

觞释

借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

ainiAnnie

借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

-- by 会员 觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

额。。。楼主是个热心人，他自己理解了可是说不出来，所以让我来写，我也不是什么大N，只能写出自己的想法，希望对你有帮助。
关于解题思路的培养，就逻辑题来说，你要多做OG，把上面的逻辑题都做了，就会对逻辑的解题思路就会有感觉，熟悉出题套路以后，就自然会想到了。
至于这一题，D选项说 楼房质量越好，被闲置或废弃的可能性越小，那反过来想一下就好了么：质量越差的楼房越容易被废弃。

bob9603

借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

-- by 会员 觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

嗨，这位nn的问题很好啊，其实我做的时候就是用排除法，没有往这方面想~
             其实我觉得原文中有比较，又因为是weaken题，所以应该削弱这种比较。
通俗一点说，这不是有比较嘛，你就把他们趋同（因为比较就会有不同，所以就要趋同），这是一种办法。
                    如果没有这类的选项，你就可以这么想：这对比较其实是不成立的，这样一来不就反驳了作者了吗
(其实个人觉得weaken题就是抬杠)

那对于这道题，也就是说，拿过去的和现在的比，没法比，为什么呢，你想啊，一个老的，一个新的，肯定多少存在时间关系，但又要联系原文，原文提及的是质量，所以还要以质量切入。你就往质量的角度去找让比较不成立的选项。

那看选项d，质量越好，越少损毁~也就是说，老的保留下来的就是好的~我觉得这里你会问“保留”这个感觉是怎么出来的，是酱，越少损坏，反过来说就是越多的留下来，所以就有保留的意思了，所以就有 保留是最好的  这样的感觉。
而反观现在的建筑，还没有经过时间的考验，所以自然没得比~

我说的比较啰嗦，你重点看红字的部分。

凑合看吧，我的逻辑也比较混乱~抱拳啦~

bob9603

借地问一下我的疑惑，见下~
“可是在做题的时候，我只读了字面的意思“楼房质量越好，越不会被闲置或破损“ 却想不到更深层的意思：剩下来的都是最好的，不能以偏概全。如何才能培养这样的做题思路呢？ ”

-- by 会员 觞释 (2012/3/7 20:19:00)

额。。。楼主是个热心人，他自己理解了可是说不出来，所以让我来写，我也不是什么大N，只能写出自己的想法，希望对你有帮助。
关于解题思路的培养，就逻辑题来说，你要多做OG，把上面的逻辑题都做了，就会对逻辑的解题思路就会有感觉，熟悉出题套路以后，就自然会想到了。
至于这一题，D选项说 楼房质量越好，被闲置或废弃的可能性越小，那反过来想一下就好了么：质量越差的楼房越容易被废弃。

-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/3/7 21:05:23)

哎呀，谢谢annie百忙之中抽出时间帮助小菜哈~感激不尽~！！抱拳啦

babybearmm

我的思路如下，欢迎讨论

1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"

2. diagramming（我在草稿纸上用圆圈里面的P代表premise，圆圈里面的C代表conclusion, qual=quality）
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
就说good carp-er work是good carp qual的必要条件

就说分析出，作者得出结论需要assume一个causal relationship.
对于大多数weaken/strengthen题目，通常都不会直接针对premise（尤其是factual data），而是针对作者隐藏的assumption，从而削弱从premise推到conclusion的逻辑力度。

3. Prephrase. 上面我分析道，正确答案大概率是攻击：
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
这是一个causal relationship，于是想到bible讲的攻击causal relationship的5种方式.... Keep that in mind while reading through the answer choices.
....

这题其实很难预测答案，因为有5种方式削弱causal relationship，而这道题的正确答案属于第5种，就是抨击data interpretation。换句话说，D是说factual data不足以支撑causal relationship.
回头看我的笔记：
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
关键问题出在：黄颜色背景的部分，是基于一个现代人的视角的data，也就是EXISTING carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
但是，尽管我笔记漏掉了"existing"这点，我也不会miss掉D选项，因为我分析道削弱因果的5种方式，其中有一种是data interpretation. 所以看到D，我就想: Yes, this choice is attacking the way the author interpretates the data

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?



(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论


[c2]无关


[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系


[c4]Support


[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。


[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

ainiAnnie

我的思路如下，欢迎讨论

1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"

2. diagramming（我在草稿纸上用圆圈里面的P代表premise，圆圈里面的C代表conclusion, qual=quality）
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
就说good carp-er work是good carp qual的必要条件

就说分析出，作者得出结论需要assume一个causal relationship.
对于大多数weaken/strengthen题目，通常都不会直接针对premise（尤其是factual data），而是针对作者隐藏的assumption，从而削弱从premise推到conclusion的逻辑力度。

3. Prephrase. 上面我分析道，正确答案大概率是攻击：
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
这是一个causal relationship，于是想到bible讲的攻击causal relationship的5种方式.... Keep that in mind while reading through the answer choices.
....

这题其实很难预测答案，因为有5种方式削弱causal relationship，而这道题的正确答案属于第5种，就是抨击data interpretation。换句话说，D是说factual data不足以支撑causal relationship.
回头看我的笔记：
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
关键问题出在：黄颜色背景的部分，是基于一个现代人的视角的data，也就是EXISTING carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
但是，尽管我笔记漏掉了"existing"这点，我也不会miss掉D选项，因为我分析道削弱因果的5种方式，其中有一种是data interpretation. 所以看到D，我就想: Yes, this choice is attacking the way the author interpretates the data

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?



(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论


[c2]无关


[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系


[c4]Support


[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。


[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 6:04:43)

谢谢baby姐如此详细的解答，由于我最近在做语法，逻辑只是过了一遍OG，没有做总结，相对于baby系统的思维过程，我的比较零散。
我一般做题的时候只列出 直接的因果关系，即 简单写为 因→果，其余信息作为备用。
其实，我弱弱的觉得吧，中国人逻辑思维都不差，只要题目读懂了，就算不能预测出答案，看到选项也能选出来。。。。逻辑一定程度上是考阅读能力，相反 最近准备 语法的时候 发现 有些语法题需要用逻辑思维分析。。。。一些小心德体会。。。。

tthere

我的思路如下，欢迎讨论

1. 读题，第一句话data，作为premise。第二句话conclusion，标志"clearly"

2. diagramming（我在草稿纸上用圆圈里面的P代表premise，圆圈里面的C代表conclusion, qual=quality）
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
就说good carp-er work是good carp qual的必要条件

就说分析出，作者得出结论需要assume一个causal relationship.
对于大多数weaken/strengthen题目，通常都不会直接针对premise（尤其是factual data），而是针对作者隐藏的assumption，从而削弱从premise推到conclusion的逻辑力度。

3. Prephrase. 上面我分析道，正确答案大概率是攻击：
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
这是一个causal relationship，于是想到bible讲的攻击causal relationship的5种方式.... Keep that in mind while reading through the answer choices.
....

这题其实很难预测答案，因为有5种方式削弱causal relationship，而这道题的正确答案属于第5种，就是抨击data interpretation。换句话说，D是说factual data不足以支撑causal relationship.
回头看我的笔记：
Premise:  Carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Conclusion: Carp-er work: bef 1930 > aft 1930
Possible assumption: good carp qual -------> good carp-er work
关键问题出在：黄颜色背景的部分，是基于一个现代人的视角的data，也就是EXISTING carp qual: bef 1930 > aft 1930
但是，尽管我笔记漏掉了"existing"这点，我也不会miss掉D选项，因为我分析道削弱因果的5种方式，其中有一种是data interpretation. 所以看到D，我就想: Yes, this choice is attacking the way the author interpretates the data

114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout thecountry and have noticed that in those built before1930 the quality of the original carpentry work isgenerally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930typically worked with more skill, care, and effort thancarpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.[c1]

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?



(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.[c2]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generallyaccommodate[c3] more guests than those built

before 1930.

(C)[c4] The materials available to carpenters workingbefore 1930 were not significantly different inquality from the materials available tocarpenters working after 1930.

(D)[c5] The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall intodisuse and be demolished.D

(E)[c6] The average length of apprenticeship forcarpenters has declined significantly since 1930[c1]因果型结论


[c2]无关


[c3]没有信息说明其与木工质量的关系


[c4]Support


[c5]显示导致因果的资料有误。说明用现存的hotel做比较不具有代表性，因为很可能过去很多质量不好的都弃用了，剩下的都是好的。


[c6]Support

我不是很明白，是说原文结论的结论有误，取而代之的应该是和质量有关的D吗？？？也就是D中所说的质量越好，越少demolished~是这个意思吗？也就是weaken题常用的给出的信息不正确，是这个意思吗？即才c1处是错的，weaken的就是这个~

-- by 会员 bob9603 (2012/3/5 20:36:14)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 6:04:43)

BABY姐的分析又是这么到位！
不过我还有一个疑问，题目中说的质量不好的会被拆除，那只是针对1930年以前的建筑而言么？现在所看到的1930之后的建筑就不是留下的最好的？

亲亲麦小兜

mark