[求助]GWD-6-38

bobomomo

Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.  If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere.  In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.

Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.

Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.

None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated

这个ASSUMPTION , 我根本就不知道它在考什么! 就感觉提干和题目甚至没什么联系 不知道为什么!! 把E取非 结论是能不成立 但我就是觉得特别的不舒服 特别不舒服 不知道是哪个线搭错了 NN 把我分析下每个选择和题目的关系吧! ( LAWYER ,你在吗?)  xiexie le

lawyer_1

原文推理：因为7个小公司没钱更换生产线满足政府的新规定，所以只有3个大公司能生存。

E说7个小公司现在生产的产品都不符合政府的这个新规定。取非。如果有小公司现在生产的产品符合新规定，就不用改生产线，也就不只3个公司能生存。所以为假设

paopao

lawyer>我理解这题有个gap

前提 如果政府要规范生产 所有的生产企业要符合某一规范

结论 如果小企业没钱更新来符合规范 只有大企业能生存

中间的GAP 如果政府规范生产 小企业不符合标准

lawyer_1

不但小企业，大企业也不符合标准。你的理解是对的。广义上讲假设题都是GAP的问题，但这样很泛，不易找，所以我通常将GAP局限于概念上的GAP，即狭义上理解。这样如果读题时如果发现结论出现新概念，那立即从答案找该概念。否则看那些选项是排除削弱结论的。

paopao

lawyer 你的意思GAP是指名词上的GAP 对吗

但我感觉仅仅用名词理解不够啊 有些题没法解

比如OG

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.

跟GWD的这题极其相似 也是个GAP

195.

The passage argues that charitable and educational institutions, part of whose income comes from donations, would be negatively affected if wealthy individuals could not count such donations as deductions from their income. The question asks you to identify an assumption of the argument-that is, something that has to be true in order for the evidence presented to establish the conclusion.

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.

lawyer: 如果碰到这种的假设题 你不用GAP来理解 你该如何理解呢

谢谢

leeon

这类题形应该是GMAT中最最普遍的演绎推理题干：

前提－>结论

此类题干可以出假设、加强、削弱、评价题型。

前提是讲政府规范，结论是小企业和大企业的生存。里面的线形关系存在于：

政府规范－小企业和大企业的生存

很明显原文假设了政府规范－小企业不能生存，大企业能生存之间的逻辑连线；

再依据原文的内容since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications,我们可以看出原文的推理：不能转换生产线－不能生存，那么也就是(1)假设了老生产线不合标准。only the three large companies 能生存，说明(2)假设了这三家大企业能按新的标准转换生产线。

再看选项，B,C,D我们能一眼就排除，看A， not regulate the manufacture of the product和原文完全无关，A是无关选项。E符合假设(1)，因此是答案。

lawyer_1

我在楼上说过，就是看那些选项排除削弱结论的可能，其实就是DENIAL TEST。你说的题就是这样，包括楼主的题。

paopao

lawyer 你这样的解题 思路明确 易操作 我这样的做法 有时能发现GAP 做起来容易 有时发现不了 就头疼了

另外A如果改为

None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.

是不是也是假设

谢谢

leeon

首先一点 regulate the manufacture of the product，和原文还是有点出入的，原文说的是regulates the industry，发布某个规范要让企业遵守这个规范。与控制这个产品的生产有一点点区别。

其次。原文的assumption是必要条件。你这么一改变成了充分条件了。这个在GMAT假设题中应该不会出现这种答案。

bobomomo

昨天发完这个求助 就去睡觉了 今早起来看到帖子已经到9楼了 呵呵

谢谢LAWYER LEEON 和PAOPAO

这T 我没理解好 可能是因为里面有2个ASSUMPTION ， 我在想E 的时候 就想另一个 弄的糊涂了

再好好推销一下