大全-8-1，标准答案E绝对窝火

lawyer_1

完全正确

paopao

极度感谢

我将这个贴子链接入我跟laywer学逻辑

paopao

lawyer: 我还是有疑问

关于你说的结论的前提

E的致命之处在于原文的结论是有前提的：continued production of the drug 。即结论是在能继续生产的前提下得出结论的。所以如果如E所说的I长在找不到的地方，则无法继续生产，也即结论的前提没满足，不满足结论的条件，更谈不上削弱结论，因为不能继续生产是另外一个问题，不是结论谈论的问题，应该是无关选项。

我认为不是前提 而是结论的一部分

而削弱是可以削弱结论的前提的

如OG157

Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each company, the employees of Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P. Therefore, employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P.

157.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.

(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.

(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.

(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.

(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

157.

The data used to support the conclusion come from the companies’ own records. Since, however, choice B indicates that, as compared with Company O, Company P tends to overstate the number of job-related accidents, choice B weakens the conclusion drawn and is the best answer.

B就是通过削弱前提来达到削弱的目的

谢谢

kenshin

我拍一道题目标准答案的一块砖居然引了这么一堆玉出来,可喜可贺阿

另外想问：

大全和OG的题目有交集吗？有的话，对应是不是有规律的？对应没有规律的话，有没有前人做过其他整理工作可以参照查找的？

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-25 13:16:45编辑过]

kenshin

以下是引用paopao在2004-10-25 10:40:00的发言：

lawyer: 我还是有疑问

关于你说的结论的前提

E的致命之处在于原文的结论是有前提的：continued production of the drug 。即结论是在能继续生产的前提下得出结论的。所以如果如E所说的I长在找不到的地方，则无法继续生产，也即结论的前提没满足，不满足结论的条件，更谈不上削弱结论，因为不能继续生产是另外一个问题，不是结论谈论的问题，应该是无关选项。

我认为不是前提 而是结论的一部分

而削弱是可以削弱结论的前提的

如OG157

Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each company, the employees of Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P. Therefore, employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P.

157.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.

(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.

(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.

(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.

(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

157.

The data used to support the conclusion come from the companies’ own records. Since, however, choice B indicates that, as compared with Company O, Company P tends to overstate the number of job-related accidents, choice B weakens the conclusion drawn and is the best answer.

B就是通过削弱前提来达到削弱的目的

谢谢

前提是：相同的人，相同的工作时间，根据两公司记录，P事故数少，结论：O更容易出事故。

没有反驳前提，它承认记录结果，只是说记录的标准不一致，只是反驳了从前提到结论的推导过程。

而lawyer说的“前提”是指的条件型结论中的包含的前提，跟整个大逻辑的前提是不同概念，应该加以区分。

entia

24小时上CD就一定能考800分。前后是是充分必要关系：IF24小时上CD，THEN 能考800分。

24小时上CD导致我考800分。前后是因果关系：24小时上CD，so 我考800分。

我没有上CD24小时 GMAT也考了800分

本来我自己是认为　我没有上CD24小时 GMAT也考了800分 不是削弱的。但是现在你看看！！

如果我上CD24小时，GMAT就一定靠８00分－－＞我没有上CD24小时 GMAT也考了800分 不是削弱。

因为我上CD24小时，ｓｏ，GMAT靠了８00分－－－－－〉我没有上CD24小时 GMAT也考了800分　是削弱！！！　（无因有果，典型的新东方判断ｗｅａｋｅｎ的ｔｙｐｅ！！！）

哇！那么如果就一句光秃秃的　我上ｃｄ２４小时，ｇｍａｔ　８００。让你判断我没有上CD24小时 GMAT也考了800分是不是削弱，你说咋办？？　

lawyer_1

我上ｃｄ２４小时，ｇｍａｔ　８００。单纯这句话，看不出24小时上CD和800分的关系，到底是因果关系，还是充分必要关系，所以无法判断你后面那句话是否为削弱。

hpp920

24小时上CD就一定能考800分。前后是是充分必要关系：IF24小时上CD，THEN 能考800分。

24小时上CD导致我考800分。前后是因果关系：24小时上CD，so 我考800分。

今天才看见这贴,又学了一招 我一直以为24小时上CD导致我考800分是24小时上CD就一定能考800分的加强呢

看来如果题干是充分必要关系, 那么把它转化成因果关系是一种weaken, 或对必要条件直接进行否定也是一种weaken, 对吗?

roland1972

先珍藏，慢慢消化！

entia

哦。我记住了。 我考GMat ，但是前次逻辑让我出了洋相，我发誓用last拼了。反正今年来不及了，我慢慢烤吧