OG-51, do I have a right understanding?

dream1111

51. Guitar strings often go “dead”—become less responsive and bright in tone—after a few weeks of intense use.

A researcher whose son is a classical guitarist hypothesized that dirt and oil, rather than changes in the material properties of the string, were responsible.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to yield significant information that would help to evaluate the researcher’s hypothesis?

(A) Determining if a metal alloy is used to make the strings used by classical guitarists

(B) Determining whether classical guitarists make their strings go dead faster than do folk guitarists

(C) Determining whether identical lengths of string, of the same gauge, go dead at different rates when strung on various brands of guitars.

(D) Determining whether a dead string and a new string produce different qualities of sound

(E) Determining whether smearing various substances on new guitar strings causes them to go dead

Key: E

My question is :

I think that the arugument is saying that dirt and oil give an explanation to string's death which means that they are necessary to strings' death rather than sufficient.

However, obviously if E is right it will mean oil is sufficient to string's death. In another word, if smearing  oil causes string's death the hypothesis is right, and if it does not the hypothesis is wrong.

The argument is expressing such  meaning as that if something on oil and dirt is true strings will die ?

Probably not, I think it is saying that oil and dirt give an explanation to strings' death. And If my understanding is right a good answer should be that without oil and dirt's contamination whether the string will die.

ETS should not make a mistake.  who can give me a confirmation to my wrong understanding on the argument?

唐三彩

此题型是evaluate，即是否污渍导致了吉他铉的报废，5个选项只有E提到了污渍，因此应该说是正确答案；至于楼主提出的问题，偶想，楼主是多虑了，rather than .........were responsible的意思就是说sufficient。请楼主体会。。。。

dream1111

Thank you for your confirmation.

Considering this question and its answer choices together, we have to take the' rather than .........were responsible' as being sufficient.

But  in terms of only this argument, for the first look I can not get any information surely that makes me to think it is sufficient, and in fact just opposite .

Fortunately , not too many questions making me confusing in OG like this.

Anyone who can give some personal thinking or tips on this? , since the matter on required or sufficient is the key to RC.

cranberry

我想，如果认为a可以导致b，那么一个正常的结论是a是b的原因，换言之，a是b的充分条件。我们在说一个事件是另一个事件的原因时，其暗含的意思应该如此。

lawyer_1

1。原文的responsible和E选项的causes是因果关系，因果关系不同充分必要关系。后者有推理关系，前者是归纳的范畴，没有推理关系（MUST BE）关系。

2。E对的原因是EVALUATION题对选项YES和NO能对原文起支持和削弱作用即是答案，不是MUST BE结论。

cranberry

请老兄详细讲解下，我一直认为因为a所以b的结构都是a--b的类型

lawyer_1

1。建议不管陈向东那本书所说的A-B型和B-A型，不但界限不清，还没意义。

2。所有的原文推理都可说成是：因为。。。所以。。。。

     因为那是作者的说理过程，是作者得出结论（所以）的原因（因为）。当然你也可将原文说成CONCLUSION 和PREMISE（国外的LSAT书都这末写）

cranberry

呵呵，老兄误会我的意思了，我是说，凡是“因为a所以b”的推理，我都认为a导致了b，也就是说b是a的必要条件

lawyer_1

sorry，cranberry兄，我误解了。“凡是“因为a所以b”的推理，我都认为a导致了b，也就是说b是a的必要条件”。正像我上面5楼说的一样，因为所以只是在说明理由，两者没有推理关系，即不能从因为MUST BE推出所以，就像因为我要赚大钱，所以要考GMAT读MBA。你不能说赚大钱是充分条件或者考GMAT读MBA是必要条件。或者反之。总之因为和所以之间没有MUST BE的推理关系。相反，如果说IF 考GMAT读MBA，THEN 赚大钱。那就有推理关系，就是说 考GMAT读MBA是充分条件，赚大钱是必要条件，两者有推理关系，即考GMAT读MBA能MUST的推出赚大钱。

fredshen

Your understanding on E is wrong. "Smearing various substance" probably means pouring oil and dirt as well as other stuff like water,wine etc. Because the string is same, the experiement is conducted on the same material groud, and the possiblity of material defect can be discarded here.  

以下是引用dream1111在2004-9-10 13:02:00的发言：

My question is :

I think that the arugument is saying that dirt and oil give an explanation to string's death which means that they are necessary to strings' death rather than sufficient.

However, obviously if E is right it will mean oil is sufficient to string's death. In another word, if smearing  oil causes string's death the hypothesis is right, and if it does not the hypothesis is wrong.

The argument is expressing such  meaning as that if something on oil and dirt is true strings will die ?

Probably not, I think it is saying that oil and dirt give an explanation to strings' death. And If my understanding is right a good answer should be that without oil and dirt's contamination whether the string will die.

ETS should not make a mistake.  who can give me a confirmation to my wrong understanding on the argument?