大全-d-4

拖泥

以下是引用Pudding在2005-2-21 17:29:00的发言：

D不正確... 即便定義了intellectual capacities tested by the standardized math and English tests referred to, 跟結論中的computer exposure也沒什麼關係, 無法判斷兩者間是否存在因果關係

E正確. 如13樓wwwhahchn mm所說, exactly此處強調的是how, 而非scores, 用白話文講, 就是: "你倒是給我說說清楚..."

用这个逻辑讲,即使"说说清楚了",还是只是证明了computer exposure 对students' abilities on math and E test 有益,而不是enhance the intellectual capacities啊

JasonTang

还是E更合理。

对于D选项，反过来考虑一下，即使我们定义了“intellectual capacities”（定义：intellectual＝eragescore），对于得到结论又有什么帮助？

rockmax

以下是引用拖泥在2007-8-21 13:18:00的发言：

用这个逻辑讲,即使"说说清楚了",还是只是证明了computer exposure 对students' abilities on math and E test 有益,而不是enhance the intellectual capacities啊

totally  agree.

if no D, then no conclusion

rockmax

以下是引用whitesand在2004-10-28 17:20:00的发言：

In 1981, for the first time in over two decades, the average scores of high school students on standardized math and English tests did not decline. During the same year, millions of American students enjoyed their first exposure to the new world of the microcomputer, whether in schools, video arcades, or other settings. The conclusion is clear: far from stultifying the intellectual capacities of students, exposure to computers can actually enhance them.

Fact 1: for the first time in over two decades, the average scores of high school students on standardized math and English tests did not decline;

Fact 2: during the same year, millions of American students enjoyed their first exposure to the new world of the microcomputer;

Assumption1: average scores of tests reveal the intellectual capacities of students;

Conclusion: exposure to computers can actually enhance the intellectual capacities of students

There is no relationship between Fact 2 and the Conclusion, making the conclusion rediculous. The reason is one more assumption is missed out:

Assumption 2: exposure to computers could improve students’ abilities on math and English tests;  

With this assumption a bridge can be set up between 'exposure to computers' and 'enhance the intellectual capacities of students'

'E' is the only one that points out this mistake, so the answer should be E.

楼上是不是自己说的就有漏洞呢, 明明提到两个ASSUMPTION,  怎么就一个E 对呢????
    

rockmax

fact 1 :  二十年来英语和数学的分数首次提高.

fact 2:   许多学生接触电脑

conclusion: 电脑提高学生智力.

D 是必不可少的, 分数要和智力搭桥.

但是D, referred to ...好像有问题, 个人觉得应该是 referred to 过去分词修饰 standardized math and English tests/    

intellectual capacities tested  中texted 修饰intellectual capacities,而by 不是接tested , 而是前面的 define sth by...

而define  ...  by..   指define  intellectual capacities by
     the standardized math and English tests

关于define... by ...  

 google:These projects define good donorship by quantifying outputs--number of projects, amount of debt relief, etc. http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2006/12/microfinance_donors_back_an_in.php

You can define the gatewayURL by using a PARAM tag (for Internet Explorer) and an EMBED tag (for Netscape) in the HTML OBJECT tag for the Macromedia Flash player.

"Like him," Romney said, "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/14679/romney_i_do_not_define_my_candidacy_my_religion

we prefer to define by means of the intermediate moments and .

http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2002-3/articlesu17.html

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-24 10:02:56编辑过]

rockmax

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-9-24 19:11:00的发言：

前提：1。二十年来，第一次学生的数学和英语分数没有下降（说明过去一直是下降的）

          2。同时期大量学生exposure to computers

结论：exposure to computers 加强intellectual capacities
   

该推理存在几个明显缺陷：

1。不是其他原因导致分数第一次没下降  (排除他因)

2。不是其他原因导致这两个现象(排除他因)

3。不是第一次没下降导致exposure to computers （如其他原因导致第一次没下降，然后它又导致exposure to computers ）(排除因果倒置)

4。分数高反映了intellectual capacities
    (搭桥)

D就是4个。没有E的份。其实原文只需要exposure to computers 确实提高了分数（没有下降）就可以，至于准确提高多少，不需知道。结论又没说准确提高多少。

还是lawyer 分析的明了透彻...  

至于准确提高多少，不需知道。结论又没说准确提高多少。  另个至于 how 提高也没有必要. 只要有上面的4个, 就可以加强...

The most serious weakness of the argument above is its failure to: 问题问的就是如何加强结论的意思..

 

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-24 10:12:04编辑过]

rockmax

另外还有一个可以加强,

以下是引用whitesand在2004-10-28 17:20:00的发言：Assumption 2: exposure to computers could improve students’ abilities on math and English tests;  (直接加强)

与how 无关 

但还是少不了 智力与分数的搭桥. 不然无论如何也扯不上 intellectual capabilities.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-24 10:18:19编辑过]

Xunan

up

leo-liu

谈谈我对这道题的看法

题中的逻辑至少存在两个明显的gap，第一是exposure to computer和保持考试成绩不降低之间的因果关系，第二个是ability on math and English和intellectual capability概念的不同。

就这两点来说，D和E都分别提到了这两点，我也在D和E上踌躇了很久，最后选了D

但我觉得E有个词不妥，就是exactly，无论你把这个exactly理解成什么（lawyer所理解的具体能力提升量的多少，或者别人所理解的“到底怎么提高的考试能力”），这么说是不是有点太“绝”了，太苛刻了，题中的weekness是没有建立exposure to computer和保持考试成绩间的因果关系，但是并不等于说人家一定要exactly的解释才行，这种要求是不是有点过了。

个人的一点看法，本质上我觉得D和E都是很有道理的，只是觉得E相对来说有点不妥。

Cherliuiking

很莫名，Rockmax引用Lawyer-1的解释也是在说D是正确的呀，有没有个确定的说法也