LSAT-4-1-5,LSAT-4-1-18,LSAT-4-1-21(新的想法）

smallkiddy

5. Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West. It is therefore likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Eastern European factories prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad.
(B) Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants.
(C) Many Eastern European emigrants need to acquire new skills after finding work in the West.
(D) Eastern European countries plan to train many new workers to replace the highly skilled workers who have emigrated.
(E) Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled.

答案是B，完全不知道为什么，B我觉得在加强阿

18. Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammalian physiology that would require her to take a healthy, anesthetized dog and subject it to a drastic blood loss in order to observe the physiological consequences of shock. The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment. Mary decides not to do this assignment.

Mary's decision most closely accords with which one of the following principles?

(A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified.

(B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.

(C) The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.

(D) Practicing veterinarians have a professional obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal except in cases of severely ill or injured animals whose prospects for recovery are dim.

(E) No one is ever justified in acting with the sole intention of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.
答案是B

albert的解答是：

18. B
关键是原文的提示信息。The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment.

B中Taking the life of an animal 和原文not survive一致。

A中suffer pain 和原文不是最接近。。
C justification for experimenting on animals 没提到能否让狗免死。
D have a professional obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal
虽然也提到了免死。。但和B的区别在于，这里强调的是救护动物。而B强调的是不去杀害动物。所以B更接近原文。
E No one is ever justified in acting with the sole intention of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human
其中的sole intention和原文不符，原文是做实验。而且加了human，扩大了范围。

不太认同，因为这样可以解释答案，但与做题的作用却不大，我希望得到一个逻辑上的解答，而不是文字含义差别的解答

21. Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election and voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, virtually all incumbents, from whatever party, seeking reelection are returned to office. However, when voters blame such a scandal on only one party, incumbents from that party are likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties. The proportion of incumbents who seek reelection is high and remarkably constant from election to election.

If the voters' reactions are guided by a principle, which one of the following principles would best account for the contrast in reactions described above?

(A) Whenever one incumbent is responsible for one major political scandal and another incumbent is responsible for another, the consequences for the two incumbents should be the same.

(B) When a major political scandal is blamed on incumbents from all parties, that judgment is more accurate than any judgment that incumbents from only on party are to blame.

(C) Incumbents who are rightly blamed for a major political scandal should not seek reelection, but if they do, they should not be returned to office.

(D) Major political scandals can practically always be blamed on incumbents, but whether those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible. 答案是E

albert的解答是：

19用排除法。这里原文有两个重点，principle需要涵盖到。
1. voter考虑的是party而不是个人，个人只是受party牵扯到
2. 当两个party都有关系的时候，保持原状；到一个party有scandal的时候,另外一个party则有利.
E最符合

不懂得说

lawyer_1

5.原文推理：东欧的skilled workers 迁到西欧。所以东欧缺skilled workers 。B说按现在的经济情况，这些人是多余的。当然就不缺的，所以WEAKEN

18。问题是：下列那个原则可以合理化M的决定。所以选项的原则范围要覆盖原文内容。A。M不做是因为动物可能死，A说的是PAIN。PAIN覆盖不了死。B。该原则是取动物性命的行为合理的必要条件是 immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person。原文就是没满足这个必要条件（只是为了观察一个现象），所以取动物性命不合理，所以M拒绝。C。 该原则为：动物实验合理的必要条件是动物将来不会SUFFERING。涵盖不了原文内容。DE也同样涵盖不了原文内容

smallkiddy

5.我觉得不是 “东欧缺skilled workers ”，而是留在东欧的skilled workers是因为大的需求亚

lawyer_1

结论有点绕：所以可能东欧国家对留在东欧skilled workers 的需求量大。即东欧对skilled workers 需求大。岂不是缺skilled workers 。B说的是不需求了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-10 7:12:08编辑过]

lawyer_1

21实质为解释矛盾题。原文矛盾：如果某个政党有丑闻时，某个政党的现任官员可能竞争不过其他政党的官员。但是，现任官员的比例却不变。就是说以往总有个别政党有丑闻，应该有些官员会被竞争掉。但事实不是，这些官员动不了。E的意思是：当官员责任小于其政党时，选民将意见表达在那个政党上，不在该官员上。所以该官员还是动不了。解释了该矛盾。

Bensontuo

smallkiddy 发表于 2004-10-9 15:30
5. Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate t ...

5.
Spot the question type: Necessary Assumption - Weaken

Core of the argument:

Well, if you conclude that the skilled worker in Eastern Europe are in high demand since a huge numbers of the workers migrated to the West, then you must assume 2 of the following scenarios.

a. The total numbers of the works required those skills do not change and no any other " new " skills can replace the skills mentioned.

b. No one be able to learn the skills in order to substitute the gap.

＊思路模式

原文的原因為充分條件保證了結果為必要條件, 那我們要找到的就是在不違反原因即是為原文的充分條件的前提下, 找到另外一個充分條件為原因, 去質詢結果不為百分之百必要。

let us dive into the answers.

A. support

B. Exactly the same as we just discussed. Correct Answer - 產業結構大更動, 原來的職位都被刪除掉了, 當然那些有勝任這些被刪除掉的職位的技能的勞工不會被需要了

C. 跟原文無關

D. 好, 迷惑選項。  “ 計畫”不代表計畫已經被實行, 也不代表計畫會成功, 如果這個選項要對, 你必須要做兩個假設, 計畫鐵定能被實行, 且實行的計畫必定成功。但是如果這個想法可能對可能不對, 他沒有辦法起到完全加強或是完全削弱的作用。

E. 鐵定加強。

18.

Spot the question type: Principle

Core of the argument:

If Mary decide not to do something, what must be true, or If what must be true, Mary must be either decide or not decide.

思考順序：

1. 條件式邏輯列好, 2. 千萬小心沒提到的充分以及必要條件, 3. 規避掉Mistaken negate and reverse. 4. 無關選項不要浪費時間思考。

let us dive into the answers.

A. Is there any thing relevant to " Pain" ? No, eliminate.

B. Kill is justified ---> Immediately save lives or protect health of life.

* If not save lives and not protect life ---> Not justified  ( interesting, 原文結論的最後一句為 The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment, so Mary decides not to do the assignments ) 留著！

C. 又是suffering, 直接刪除。原文的狗是有麻醉的

D. Obligation 新含義, severely ill, 新含義, injured animals 新含義, recovery are dim, 新含義

( 看起來政治正確, 但是有四個定義我們必須要去做邏輯上的街橋, 除非沒有其他的答案, 不然這個選項不能選）

再來, 誰說這個動物的死是unnecessary ?

E. based on the logic, a person could be justified with " at least 2 attentions "?  完全不對。


回到Ｂ, 用國語解釋, 充分條件為, 沒有辦法立即的幫助解救動物＋沒有辦法立即的保護人類的健康, 殺動物是不能夠被證實為對的, 回到結論來看, 狗無法恢復意識, 也不能存活, 所以Ｍ不做實驗。 狗不能存活就是被殺, 那殺狗要被證實為對的, 你必然要立即的幫忙解救動物或是能夠立即的保護人類的健康, 可是此必要條件並不存在, 所以, 逆否後, 沒有辦法立即的幫助解救動物 ＋沒有辦法立即的保護人類的健康的充分條件是存在的, 所以殺動物是不能夠被證實為對的, 就是因為殺動物不能夠被證實為對的, 所以馬力決定不做實驗。

* Albert 講的簡略實用, 但是沒講到核心, 你要邏輯解答, 我試著提供。

21.

Spot the question type: Principle

Core of the argument:

P1: If MPC erupt before an election + Voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, any incumbents seeking elections are returned to office.

If not all incumbent are turned to office, then it must be true that MPC does not erupt before an election or voters does not blame the scandal on all parties equally.  

( It must be true that some of the incumbents from the parties less blamed by the voters will not return back to the office )

P2: If Voters blame scandal on only 1 party, Incumbents from that party are likely to de defeated by challengers from other parties.

Incumbent from that party are not likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties, voters does not blame on only 1 party.

P3: The proportion of incumbents who seek reelection is high and remarkably constant from election to election

If the information are all correct and followed by voters, then which one could be the greatest opposite from we expected ?

考的其實是什麼？給資訊, 假設資訊為真, 推敲下列何必為真 “ 的相反 ”, 換句話說, 就是必要假設的相反。

必要假設為何？  只要選民抨擊某一政黨, 其政黨的選舉人在選舉上必定有負面的影響。

那必要假設的相反, 即取非就是：只要選民抨擊某一政黨, 其政黨的候選人在選舉上不會有比沒被抨擊的政黨的候選人有更多的負面影響。

let us dive into the answers.

A. 這個選項無關, 如果要讓這個選項有關, 我們必須假設, 這兩個候選人的政黨皆有被選民抨擊, 因為如果沒有被選民抨擊, 不管有無責任, 他們的選舉結果是否一樣或是不一樣是無法確定的, 再來, 就算這個假設題目有提, 此答案為本題論證的支持, 但是我們要找的是本文論證之必要假設的取非。

B. 新概念出來了：judgement, 本文論證只在討論投票者抨擊政黨醜聞對於其政黨候選人選舉結果的影響, 本文沒有再討論到底對於全部政黨抨擊的判斷對比上對於某一政黨的判斷哪一個為“ 比較正確”

C. 本文沒有提到候選人在某種情況下是否該做何事或是不該做何事, 本文的論證核心為, 候選人在某種狀況下做何事會哪有種情形的發生。

D. 好, 這個把挑戰者的個人因素當成是被抨擊政黨候選人是否會贏得選舉的必要條件, 扭曲了原意, 不能夠當作是必要條件的相反

E. 如果MPS對於個體候選人的責任小於其所屬政黨的責任, 當可能的時候, 政黨必須被處法。

( 這裡看似很繞, 仔細想想, 有ＭＰＳ的發生, 且產生了責任歸屬問題的時候, 必定是投票者抨擊了, 可是投票者抨擊政黨的時候, 是“候選人”必須要打包票回家, 而不是政黨出來承擔責任, 而這個選項卻是我們剛剛的必要假設的取非 : 只要選民抨擊某一政黨, 其政黨的候選人在選舉上不會有比沒被抨擊的政黨的候選人有更多的負面影響。意思是說, 是政黨承擔責任, 而不是候選人承擔責任 ）- 正確答案。

雖然不知道Albert 為何方神聖, 我看不懂他的解釋也有可能是我學識淺薄

但是首先, 原文沒有提到“只有兩個政黨”選舉, 再來, 如果原文看得懂, 且思考迅速, 考試技巧排除法當然可用, 可是如果連題目原文的主要概念都沒有抓到了, 你要怎麼排除？