两道lsat请教；lsat-2-2-19;lsat-2-2-11

david_348

How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots’ lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.

(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.（D）

(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.

我选的是a；

        “If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.

“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?

(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.

(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.

(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.

(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.（B）

(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

请问该题该如何解答？e为何不对

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-1 15:14:57编辑过]

chelseayang

for the first question:
The key to the question is to identify the gap between the premise and the conclusion, which you usually can locate the major assumption.

Premise 1: pilot error contributes to crashes;
Premise 2: upgraded training program does not compensate for pilot's lack of actual   flying time;
Conlusion: they should rethink the training approach to reducing crashes, i.e. reducing pilot error.

The "gap" is something that links P1, P2 and the conlusion. So the major assumption here is: lack of actual flying time contributes to pilot error, and therefore crashes (which the proposed training program can not help)

(A) is wrong because
the word "elimilate" is extreme. We are talking about "reducing". The training does not need to be able to "elimilate' pilot error to reduce crashes

You see how tricky LSAT is!

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-1 9:59:48编辑过]

chelseayang

For Q2:“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.（B）
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

Consistent=not in conflict with. My answer is (d)

Biologist:deforestation continues at current pace, koala will approach extinction
Politician:to save koala, we have to stop deforestation
the difference between these two guys is: biologist may think that slowing down deforestation may (and may not ) save koala, whereas the politian goes further claiming that totally stopping deforestation is the way to save koala.

A)  obviously both guys would agree;
B) it is possible that koala will still die out even deforestation is stopped. both guyes do not exclude this possibility.
C)consistent with both. this is exactly what they hope for
D)consistent with the biologist as i indicated in above; it is not consistent with the politician, since he believes that "stopping deforestation" is necessary for saving koala;
E)consistent with both. the biologist does not exclude the possibility. "continue--extinction" does not deny the possibility of "slow down--extinction"; consistent with the politian. actually he may propose "total stopping" based on this assumption

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-1 13:39:37编辑过]

david_348

以下是引用chelseayang在2004-12-1 10:30:00的发言：

For Q2:“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.（B）
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

Consistent=not in conflict with. My answer is (d)

Biologist:deforestation continues at current pace, koala will approach extinction
Politician:to save koala, we have to stop deforestation
the difference between these two guys is: biologist may think that slowing down deforestation may (and may not ) save koala, whereas the politian goes further claiming that totally stopping deforestation is the way to save koala.

A)  obviously both guys would agree;
B) it is possible that koala will still die out even deforestation is stopped. both guyes do not exclude this possibility.
C)consistent with both. this is exactly what they hope for
D)consistent with the biologist as i indicated in above; it is not consistent with the politician, since he believes that "stopping deforestation" is necessary for saving koala;
E)consistent with both. the biologist does not exclude the possibility. "continue--extinction" does not deny the possibility of "slow down--extinction"; consistent with the politian. actually he may propose "total stopping" based on this assumption

thanks a lot for your reply!

q1:it's due to my careless reading.

q2:how about the B choice? B) it is possible that koala will still die out even deforestation is stopped. both guyes do not exclude this possibility.--your explanation is not convincing since the politician means that coala must  survive if  deforestation is stopped.

another question is addressed:what's negation of "the statement of politician"?I'm so confused.

lawyer_1

答案必须和生物学家不矛盾，和政治家矛盾

关键理解政治家的话：all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation。它相当于to save the koala, stop deforestation is all。它有两层意思：save---->stop deforestation和stop deforestation----->save。B违反了第二层意思。又和生物学家的话不矛盾。所以为答案。

D，E用的词为slow，无法和政治家的话构成矛盾（政治家用stop）。故不可能为答案。

david_348

谢谢lawyer！！

对政治家的否定，应该着重在否定其暗示推理的成立；而不是在slow deforestion作文章，对吗？

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-2 0:55:39编辑过]

chelseayang

恩，还是LAWYER 厉害

Ja, "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation" should be understood as " stopping deforestation is sufficient to save koala", not "necessary".

sufficient...necessary...sufficient

xjlv128

以下是引用chelseayang在2004-12-2 3:22:00的发言：

sufficient...necessary...sufficient

这题还不算最