也问几到逻辑题，OG-79，princeton 模考

kethy

1. OG79
79. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

这道题第一次看的时候简直脑筋短路，后来还不是很明白。

2. princeton 2002模考

The main objective of private industry is to generate income; therefore, any legislated restrictions on business practices operate only to industry's disadvantage. Industry must be allowed complete freedom in the development of new technologies as well as in the manufacturing of products.

Opponents of the conclusion drawn above would be LEAST likely to cite which of the following points in their rebuttals?
A. If consumers know that an industry operates within the bounds of environmental regulations, they are more likely to purchase that company's products.
B. Legislated restrictions force companies to run more efficiently, which in turn reduces operating costs.
C. When a company's management restricts research and development to a few focused areas, the immediate cost benefits are substantial.
D. When technological research is unrestricted by legislation, companies waste money developing similar technologies.
E. In some cases, industrial compliance with strict regulations has resulted in teh invention of more efficient means of production.

我初看觉得哪样都对。为什么C不对呢？C不可以是legislated restriction的结果么？

3. 也是princeton 模考。

According to ....., the following criteria must be met before any dating can take place:
When the parents of one young person have agreed with the parents of another young person that the two young people may date, each of the young people must consent, and before so doing must have the other's consent.

Which of the following assessments of the logic of the proposed dating guidelines is accurate?
A. The guidelines would make it possible for a young person who dates to be sure that the other person has consented to the date.
B. The guidelines would allow a young person to decline a date without the other person knowing that the date hs been declined.
C. If there are several people whom a young person wishes to date,  teh guidelines would prevent a young person from considering several offers before deciding whom to date.
D. The guidelines would give a young person the final sya in choosing dates.
E. The guidelines would make it impossible for any young people in the sect to date.

首先，"before so doing"指的是doing what? 如果指dating，那么俩家父母同意则两人一定得同意，所以可以date,也满足另一个条件：must have the other's consent. 如果是说两家父母同意之前就要先征得两个人同意，那仍然可以所有人都同意，从而date啊。答案是E。我选了A，不明白。

siebel

let me try...

推理过程：deaf和reply分离-->回答no. 推理成立的前提条件：
1 病人听到了问题（否则不会回答）。而且，
2 reply part知道自己deaf（否则不会回答no）。
而这个假设2与前提矛盾。即：

答案a:为什么不回答yes呢？如果回答了yes，则说明deaf和reply果然分离。正是指出了这个矛盾。

自我感觉：需要推出隐含假设再做weaken的gmat题好像不多。

不晓得说清楚了没有。其实欧这里也糊涂。不过隐约体会到有隐含假设的时候，这个题目已经可以做出来了。

lyricling

第二题，
C项只说company's management restricts ，这个restrict不知道是否与legislated restrictions有关。C项应该是无关项。
第三题，
题中说，父母同意子女约会，子女也要同意。但子女必须在对方同意后才能同意。两方都遵循这个原则的话，他们就没法约会了。因为谁都没法先同意。

atongmu

以下是引用siebel在2003-7-11 12:27:00的发言：
let me try...

推理过程：deaf和reply分离-->回答no. 推理成立的前提条件：
1 病人听到了问题（否则不会回答）。而且，
2 reply part知道自己deaf（否则不会回答no）。
而这个假设2与前提矛盾。即：

答案a:为什么不回答yes呢？如果回答了yes，则说明deaf和reply果然分离。正是指出了这个矛盾。

自我感觉：需要推出隐含假设再做weaken的gmat题好像不多。

不晓得说清楚了没有。其实欧这里也糊涂。不过隐约体会到有隐含假设的时候，这个题目已经可以做出来了。

看了这个解释觉得挺有道理，不过还是没有完全明白。

lifelover

同意siebel的推理，太有帮助了！！！

lifelover

第2题答案是不是B啊?

scorpio0001

我来试着解释一下，看是否能说明白，第一遍时看OG解释没有搞明白，我相信很多朋友和我一样，后来受到大家讨论的启发，再查出每个不懂得单词，终于豁然开朗。

OG解释得对，因为（人1）的问题引起了（人2）的答案。所以（人2）应该是听得到的（无论回答yes还是no),但是（根据一些thoerits的解释），这些问题被没有聋了的那部分听到（因为thoerists说聋了的那部分与回答的那部分分离），这个解释显然是有问题的。因为它没有指出为什么回答的那部分回答了好像它聋了一样。（因为回答的知道有一部分是聋的，如果按theorists的解释，应该回答yes才对）。

不知道各位明白了么？

xionghuixh

还是不懂

anitahsu

What's the answer for 2nd Q?

scorpio0001

简单的说，当（人2）回答了no，的时候，就说明了他知道有一个部分是聋了，正好驳斥了theotists说的听到部分和聋了部分分离的论调。