ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: lawyer_1

假设题如何取非

[精华] [复制链接]
发表于 2006-2-18 18:38:00 | 显示全部楼层
以下是引用Bobbysoft在2005-3-23 23:12:00的发言:

p->q这个判断(有的称之为命题)从formal logic(形式逻辑)来说,应该是P且~q


if you  get a high score of GMAT, you will be accepted by Harvard University.


It is not the case that if you  get a high score of GMAT, you will be accepted by Harvard University.<=> You get a high score of GMAT and You won't be accepted by Harvard University.


这里的很多说法都和逻辑不同,我补充一下正确的逻辑取非是什么样子的:


~(p或q) <=>(~p)且(~q)


~(p->q)<=>p且~q


~(p且q)<=>(~p)或(~q)


~(p<->q)<=>(p且~q)或(~p且q)




极是极是!但是lawyer-1说的是GMAT的“逻辑”,呵呵,培生要是来严谨的,我们的头岂不是又要大三圈!!


发表于 2006-2-20 20:20:00 | 显示全部楼层

大家好,我是菜鸟。


我想请问一下取非后有什么作用呢,怎么再去判断选项的正确性?


不吝赐教!

发表于 2006-2-22 23:35:00 | 显示全部楼层

回复:(nearmiss)大家好,我是菜鸟。我想请问一下...

引用lawyer的方法,将选项取非,原文结论不成立,则为正确选项。
发表于 2006-3-11 10:58:00 | 显示全部楼层
嗯,是假设题的做法。如果它的反面能导致结论错误,它就不可少,所以是assumption.
发表于 2006-4-14 15:39:00 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2006-4-14 15:46:00 | 显示全部楼层

195.


A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.



The argument above assumes which of the following?



(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.


(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.


(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.


(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.


(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.



Choice A is the best answer, since if this statement is false, all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now. In that case, the evidence used in the argument provides no support for the conclusion.


OG把A取非:at least some--->all 怎么是这样取的呀??? 不应该是at least some--->none吗??

发表于 2006-4-20 00:11:00 | 显示全部楼层
at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.


是不是应该这样: none wealthy inviividuals would donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
发表于 2006-4-21 15:37:00 | 显示全部楼层

不能那样取.那样取非结论还是成立的.就应该象OG那样区非:all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now.


但我不知道为什么。

发表于 2006-5-13 11:55:00 | 显示全部楼层
以下是引用amber0919在2006-4-21 15:37:00的发言:

不能那样取.那样取非结论还是成立的.就应该象OG那样区非:all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now.

但我不知道为什么。

all wealthy individuals would

none wealthy individuals would not 

不是一样吗

发表于 2006-5-13 12:16:00 | 显示全部楼层
谢谢.果然是这样..
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-28 20:19
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部