再战日志

joe11

游戏了两天，重新步入正轨。

joe11

老问题了

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not. Thus, flood-control projects are expensive engineering mistakes and a substantial waste of resources.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?
(A)Those areas that had not suffered flood damage before 1980 are the only ones that have not adopted flood-control measures
(B)Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood damage than they did in the previous decade
(C)The cost of flood damage has increased every year since 1980
(D)Faulty engineering has not been the only cause of the failure of flood-control projects
(E)The amount of rainfall since 1980 has been substantially greater than normal

就讨论一下 A,B 吧。

睡醒了后，又想了想该题。A 对的原因在于明确了它因的存在性。

不看选项，原文的推理本来就牵强。单因为花钱多就认为项目不划算，理由不充分。存在其它原因使得项目不划算。

A 保证控制对象没有任何变化，即没有修防洪措施的地方80年后还没修。这样其他比较条件都没有变化的话，cost 增加不是因为修建防洪措施引起的，而是有其他因素，例如通货膨胀，原材料涨价，人工费增加，保险费上涨 etc。

B. 提出新证据加强了原文假设：钱又花多了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-2 22:07:50编辑过]

valarie

以下是引用joe11在2004-11-2 2:57:00的发言：

老问题了

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not. Thus, flood-control projects are expensive engineering mistakes and a substantial waste of resources.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?
(A)Those areas that had not suffered flood damage before 1980 are the only ones that have not adopted flood-control measures
(B)Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood damage than they did in the previous decade
(C)The cost of flood damage has increased every year since 1980
(D)Faulty engineering has not been the only cause of the failure of flood-control projects
(E)The amount of rainfall since 1980 has been substantially greater than normal

就讨论一下 A,B 吧。

睡醒了后，又想了想该题。A 对的原因在于明确了它因的存在性。

不看选项，原文的推理本来就牵强。单因为花钱多就认为项目不划算，理由不充分。存在其它原因使得项目不划算。

A 保证控制对象没有任何变化，即没有修防洪措施的地方80年后还没修。这样其他比较条件都没有变化的话，cost 增加不是因为修建防洪措施引起的，而是有其他因素，例如通货膨胀，原材料涨价，人工费增加，保险费上涨 etc。

B. 提出新证据加强了原文假设：钱又花多了。

我终于明白了A为什么对。原文说：修防洪措施的地方（假设是A） 80年后cost 比没有修防洪措施的地方（B）多，所以防洪措施没有用。我们只要证明80年前，修防洪措施的地方（A）的cost比没有修防洪措施的地方（B）更多（比如，80年前修防洪措施的地方的cost 比没有修防洪措施的地方多1million, 80年后修防洪措施的地方的cost比没有修防洪措施的地方多 0.5million， 注意A还是比B多，但是和80年前相比，多的得少了), 那就证明防洪措施有用。

A 选项说没有修防洪措施的地方80年以前没有水灾，言外之意就是没有cost。其实这个还是不太严谨，但是也只有它了。

bobomomo

男生的队伍哦！

XY 小教室是女生的队伍 呵呵

GUD LUCK

蓝羽

笔记本终于回来了，修了这么久。偏偏考试前一周坏了，耽误了这么多的事情。

开始继续学习。

好多天没来，掉队了，大家多指点。

joe11

Thanks, Valarie. Appreciate.

Finally, 蓝羽 is back online.

leeon

以下是引用joe11在2004-11-2 2:57:00的发言：

老问题了

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not. Thus, flood-control projects are expensive engineering mistakes and a substantial waste of resources.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?
(A)Those areas that had not suffered flood damage before 1980 are the only ones that have not adopted flood-control measures
(B)Since 1980, those areas that have taken flood-control measures have suffered greater flood damage than they did in the previous decade
(C)The cost of flood damage has increased every year since 1980
(D)Faulty engineering has not been the only cause of the failure of flood-control projects
(E)The amount of rainfall since 1980 has been substantially greater than normal

就讨论一下 A,B 吧。

睡醒了后，又想了想该题。A 对的原因在于明确了它因的存在性。

不看选项，原文的推理本来就牵强。单因为花钱多就认为项目不划算，理由不充分。存在其它原因使得项目不划算。

A 保证控制对象没有任何变化，即没有修防洪措施的地方80年后还没修。这样其他比较条件都没有变化的话，cost 增加不是因为修建防洪措施引起的，而是有其他因素，例如通货膨胀，原材料涨价，人工费增加，保险费上涨 etc。

B. 提出新证据加强了原文假设：钱又花多了。

首先看问题most damaging to the argument above，其实就是要求削弱原文结论，原文推倒结构：实施flood-control地方比没有实施的地方花钱多－>flood-control 是不必要；这个推倒成立有一个很大的前提就是所有的地方都可以不用实施flood-control。

A说没有实施flood-control的地方仅仅是那些没有遭遇水灾的地方。说明不是所有的地方都可以不用实施flood-control，从而削弱了原文结论成立的前提。B说的是实施了flood-control的地方1980年的水灾和过去十年的相比较，属于无关选项。

joe11

大家讨论来讨论去，每个人都能找到不同的问题，说明原文由假设到结论的地方

可以有很多种补齐的办法，没有唯一解。

leeon

这类题形逻辑上很多，就是前提－>结论，但是前提和结论之间没有充分必要的关系，属于非演绎型推理，所以原文的前提和结论之间必然存在很多的假设，这类题干多出，假设、加强、削弱类题形。只要找出了前提和结论之间所存在的假设，结合结论就能找到答案。

xealot

The only reason that the argument basing on is that

The cost of flood damage since 1980 has been greater in areas that have adopted flood-control measures than in those that have not.

Any rebuttal to the argument, in points of ETS, needs to, and only needs to, effectively undermine the reason above. Only A, does this in a convincing way. This is the so-called critical reasoning.