gwd-9-30

lawyer_1

MAIN IDEA就是该段文作者的主要意思，作者支持的。这篇短文的作者是CRIMINOLOGIST。他/她到底要支持什麽，表达什麽，不难看出吧。第一句BOLD可是LEGISTLATORS的意见，是CRIMINOLOGIST要反对的。

aloha

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

我对这个答案选b，没有问题。但我不明白这篇文章的逻辑推理。

第一句话：一些立法者认为应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后第三次又犯罪的罪犯终身监禁.

第三句话：然而,这个推理忽略了那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老朽到很少能再次犯罪.

最后句话：让这些罪犯充斥在监狱与我我们的愿望相反, 因为这样监禁年轻的罪犯的能力会收到限制, 这些年轻的罪犯占严重犯罪的大比例.

由第一句话可知只有犯第3次罪的人才终身监禁。第三句说老家伙们不可能再犯第3次罪。所以我觉得这些老家伙们不可能再进监狱。可文中最后句话说这些老家伙还是可能进监狱的。我没看明白这是怎么推出来的，谁能指点一下。谢谢！

aloha

up!

pengpengming

最后一句话说老家伙们充满监狱是expectation,是作者根据legislators的建议预期的可能结果.

fatlara

以下是引用aloha在2005-7-14 0:04:00的发言：

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

我对这个答案选b，没有问题。但我不明白这篇文章的逻辑推理。

第一句话：一些立法者认为应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后第三次又犯罪的罪犯终身监禁.

第三句话：然而,这个推理忽略了那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老朽到很少能再次犯罪.

最后句话：让这些罪犯充斥在监狱与我我们的愿望相反, 因为这样监禁年轻的罪犯的能力会收到限制, 这些年轻的罪犯占严重犯罪的大比例.

由第一句话可知只有犯第3次罪的人才终身监禁。第三句说老家伙们不可能再犯第3次罪。所以我觉得这些老家伙们不可能再进监狱。可文中最后句话说这些老家伙还是可能进监狱的。我没看明白这是怎么推出来的，谁能指点一下。谢谢！

同问~~

如上的红色原文到底是个什么意思,,,?

是说:"老家伙们已经没可能再进监狱"了的话,和后面"老家伙占用了监狱的资源"难道不矛盾么?

help~~~~~~严重不明白~~

elaine_tai

请问E错在哪里？

thanks a lot

yyallez

我觉得此题应该选E！

shzzhengfan

 people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime

这句话的意思是，那些人不太可能犯第四次罪，注意表达：more than one subsequent crime。所以，把这些犯三次罪的德人盼终身监禁没有必要。

danniepop

看了半天讨论还是没看懂。

第一个bf是legislator的conclusion啊，c答案是说main conclusion of the argument

e为什么不对啊？？？

zhaoyak7

以下是引用lawyer_1在2005-7-10 4:52:00的发言：
MAIN IDEA就是该段文作者的主要意思，作者支持的。这篇短文的作者是CRIMINOLOGIST。他/她到底要支持什麽，表达什麽，不难看出吧。第一句BOLD可是LEGISTLATORS的意见，是CRIMINOLOGIST要反对的。

律师已经把这个问题回答的很清楚了，而且偶以为lawyer_1回答还提示了一个重要的思路，就是“全局把握”。你如果知道了这些刑事学家想表达的本意（即终身监禁没用，反而不利于制裁严重犯罪），答案就迎刃而解了。其实很多题目都是这样的。