[求助]GWD-6-38

lawyer_1

TO PAOPAO，A按你的改法也不是答案。因为原文的推理是在规定实行的基础上讨论的。如果没实行，也不存在只有三个公司能保持经营的问题。

TO BOBO，任何一个必要型假设的结论，都有很多个假设，答案只是其中的一个。

paopao

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-11-8 20:11:00的发言：

TO PAOPAO，A按你的改法也不是答案。因为原文的推理是在规定实行的基础上讨论的。如果没实行，也不存在只有三个公司能保持经营的问题。

lawyer:我已改成规定实行的基础上了

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

如果取非 some of of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate the manufacture of the product.也就否定了结论

windweed

原文结论:

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.

我觉得原文中的推理:政策执行==>only 大公司be able to remain in business  

A即使改成楼上的说法也是无关:

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

whether or not go out of business 和是否有能力remain in business 是有区别的. 所以A 经改写还是不好.

eSpirit

感觉选项E，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.表达不是特别恰当，因为感觉match不match是specifications之间的事。是不是改为这样比较好呢：None of the specifications (the seven small companies currently uses to manufacture the product) would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.

请教！谢谢！！

calla

我想问C为什么不对？

是不是犯了否定前提的错误？可是我发现这个好像很难判断阿，有时候否定前提似乎又是对的

Avantasia

同问, C问什么不对, 如果说服了的话, 后面的一切就都不存在了啊?!

ethyl

同问, C问什么不对, 如果说服了的话, 后面的一切就都不存在了啊?!

如果这个题问这个政策能不能成功实行？

那么Ｃ是一个削弱；

但这是一道假设，如果能劝阻，的确，什么都不存在了，这道题也不存在啦；所以，C是一个无关选项，也可以说取非的话反对的是前提，削弱无效

DianaCao

lawyer,

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?

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


2. 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.


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


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


5. 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.

我觉得这题宣A,

因为，如果如果在政府没有规定时，三个大企业就因为其它原因倒了，他们就不会remain in business 了，所以前提是没规定时就不会倒。

请指教。谢谢

zhoushao

以下是引用DianaCao在2005-8-7 20:48:00的发言：

lawyer,

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?

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


2. 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.


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


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


5. 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.

我觉得这题宣A,

因为，如果如果在政府没有规定时，三个大企业就因为其它原因倒了，他们就不会remain in business 了，所以前提是没规定时就不会倒。

请指教。谢谢

顶！我也有这样的疑惑，在AE之间不能确定

潜龙勿用

以下是引用windweed在2004-12-24 23:24:00的发言：

原文结论:

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.

我觉得原文中的推理:政策执行==>only 大公司be able to remain in business  

A即使改成楼上的说法也是无关:

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

whether or not go out of business 和是否有能力remain in business 是有区别的. 所以A 经改写还是不好.

A has been consistent with the premise: Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications.