lsat 11 (2) questions

1stzhang

[face=Georgia]10. Decision makers tend to have distinctive(与众不同的) styles. One such style is for the decision maker to seek the widest possible input from advisers and to explore alternatives while making up his or her mind. In fact, decision makers of this sort will often argue vigorously(有魄力的) for a particular idea, emphasizing its strong points and downplaying its weaknesses, not because they actually believe in the idea but because they want to see if their real reservations about it are idiosyncratic or are held independently by their advisers.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statement above?

(A) If certain decision makers’ statements are quoted accurately and at length(详尽的); the content of the quote could nonetheless be greatly at variance with(和.....不和) the decision eventually make.

(B) Certain decision makers do not know which ideas they do not really believe in until after they have presented a variety of ideas to their advisers

(C) If certain decision makers dismiss an idea out of hand, it must be because its weaknesses are more pronounced than any strong points it may have.

(D) Certain decision makers proceed in a way that makes it likely that they will frequently decide in favor of ideas in which they do not believe.

(E) If certain decision makers’ advisers know the actual beliefs of those they advise, those advisers will give better advice than they would if they did not know those beliefs.

这个题目的D答案错在哪里了?



21. The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself.

(B) Presupposes what it sets out to prove.

(C) Faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable.

(D) Contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction.

(E) Concludes that a shortcoming is fatal having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming.

这个题目地答案是E.请指点[/face]

1stzhang

高手们都请来看看

1stzhang

ding

SmileFM

不是高手，讨论一下我的看法

10 某类领导经常讨论的方案不一定是他们相信的
D 类似否命题 即最后决定的方案（可能不大讨论的）一定是他们不相信的

21 原文除了最后一句话只说明了项目最优原则和空间站的方案有问题，并没有给出取消一个项目的标准。所以最后结论说方案要取消，感觉是out of scope.
E 只要有毛病就足以灭了这个方案

1stzhang

谢谢smilefm,你可以说说第十题的A答案吗

kethy

Let me try the first one.
SmileFm is right. They (the decision makers) like to argue vigorously for a particular idea, just to see how the others (their advisors) think about this idea, and to get as much information as possible. But do they believe in these ideas? We don't know. D made an assumption that they actually believe in these ideas, but they favor others when they make up their mind. Is this ture? We don't know. So, D is wrong.

The right answer should be A, right?
A is actually another way to express the statement. A means, if you record what they (decision makers) say during the process of making decisions (argues, blah blah), it could be quite different with the final decision they actually make. This is exactly what the paragraph want to tell you.

Bensontuo

1stzhang 发表于 2003-7-8 12:42
[face=Georgia]10. Decision makers tend to have distinctive(与众不同的) styles. One such style is for ...

Most strongly supported by the question means that the answer must not bring in any new ideas nor be could be true. For sure, it asks you to look for somehow must be true answer.

Conclusion: Decision makers tend to have distinctive styles.

p1: Style of the decision maker to seek the widest possible input from advisers and to explore alternatives while making up the mind.

P2. Decision makers like this will often argue for a particular idea by emphasizing strong points and downplaying the weak ones.

P3. Not because they believe the idea, but because they want to know if their reservation about the idea are idiosyncratic or are held independently by their advisers.

Inferences : People who are decision maker argue an idea by bring out the strong points and avoid the weak ones must be people, decision maker, who want to know if their reservation about the idea are idiosyncratic or are held independently by their advisers. They could either believe the idea or not. It does not really matter.

Inferences 2: Meanwhile, if Inference 1 is true, they also must seek the widest possible input from advisers and to explore alternatives while making up the minds.

Inferences 3: If Inferences 2 is correct, then they tend to have distinctive style.


lets looking into the options

A. Regardless of the fact that whether their statement are accurately and at length and the contents of the statement are greatly at variance with the decision eventually make, it does not really impact the argument.

we know that it might be possible that the final decision might be greatly differ compared to original quotes, however, we do not know if its the necessary condition of the sufficient assumption it stated.

B. " Certain decision makers do not know which ideas they do not believe in until they have presented a variety of their advisers. - Imho, this is the correct answer

They might not believe in the idea but still argue for both the strong and weak points. However, " Not because they actually believe in " could also mean - even they believe in, they still want to argue vigorously. So, could be true, but not necessary to be true. However, here is the key point, if there are certain decision makers does not know which ideas to believe, there must be certain decision makers truly believe in the ideas. In that sense, Just because of the original premise " not because they believe in ", if we negate the inference of B ( there must be certain decision makers truly believe in the ideas ), and it will become " there are no certain decision makers must do believe the ideas ", and vice versa on the original B, we can have 2 scenarios

1. All of the decision makers believe in the idea

2. All of the decision makers do not believe in the idea.

If all of the decision makers do not believe in the idea, that might be the core reason why they argue vigorously, and not because they want to exam their own idea

* This is Necessary assumption question ! Utilizing the must be true inference from the answer choice, then then treat it as the necessary assumption by seeing wether negate the logical standpoint of it could refute the original argument

C. If it can't downplay the weak and emphasize the strong ones, it might not argue vigorously that often, but that does not mean it would dismiss an idea out of hand

D. Its not about whether they will decide in favor of the idea they believe or not, its about whether how they present the idea and gather the view points to exam those of their owns.

E. If adviser knows what are the actual beliefs they advice, they will give better advices than they would if they did not know those beliefs.

Which is, you will be giving out a better idea if you know what are the actual beliefs, and you won't if you do not know. ( Irrelevant )

Bensontuo

1stzhang 发表于 2003-7-8 12:42
[face=Georgia]10. Decision makers tend to have distinctive(与众不同的) styles. One such style is for ...

21.

P1: Proper way to plan a scientific project ----> Decide the goal and then plan the way to achieve the goal

( If A, then B )

P2: Space station project lost its original purpose during the Cold War period, and original purpose be replaced with the alternative purpose

C: Space station should not be built.

Looking for the flawed within the argument

First of all, a proper project required of deciding the goal first, and then, the best way to accomplish the goal, and certainly, by replacing the purpose of the project, the goal been decided would surely different, and it would not be proper. However, wether should we do something and whether that thing is proper does not have exact logical relation. For example, we should declare war with a country brutally invades our nation even though by declaring of the war itself is not proper. And if we win the war declared, regardless of the fact that It was not proper, should not we declare it ?

Secondly, the best way to achieve certain goal does not mean that particular way could not " also " be the best way of achieving the other goal. So, even though it is not " a proper way " to plan a project does not mean the project with its goal replaced would not be achieved perfectly.

Let us look into the answers given

A. Attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself - ( there is no any " ad hominem " fallacies.

B. Circular reasoning, which is, the support could be the conclusion and vice versa, apparently, its not the case here.

C. its logical reasonable to " not " foresee a certain event, and its also logical reasonable to blame such act. No a flaw.

D. It does not contradict itself, if the argument conclude that it could be a " proper " way to plan it, then it could be the answer.

E. The existence of that shortcoming could be sufficient enough to be the evidence to prove that shortcoming is fatal enough - Shortcoming - Not proper . Evidence: Goal replaced.  Fatal enough - Should not be built.

( Perfectly restate the second point discussed above, correct answer.