OG 第89题

virgmat

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-3 13:47
那这道题你不该有问题的since开始到他们的担心relieve了都是back ground information。
they reason that ...

请看我***后的回复.

那这道题你不该有问题的since开始到他们的担心relieve了都是back ground information。
they reason that。。。是premis来推出opposite 观点：rumors are false
文章的主观点是（main conclusion）：rumors没错***你是指main conclusion是"Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic"吗?如果是的,那我同意.
最后一句话since。。。是证明文章主观点的P
这样分析下来，第一个黑体在背景知识里，第二个黑体在文章主观点的premis里，有什么难的呢？
所以第一个是一个evidence，是depositor用来证明他们观点的。第二个是P，来解释文章的主观点，而主观点和depositor的观点相左，所以证明主观点就是question前面的opposite观点。所以选A***我highlight出红色的部分不是正好是选项D中的"the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish."吗? the argument seeks to establish的就是main conclusion啊? 我不否认选项A, 只是对于选项D,不明白为什么第二段BF不能作为explanation.
你还是要好好研究一下SDCAR大神的东西，弄懂了真心不会有问题

virgmat

vertex顶点 发表于 2013-9-3 13:58
D看起来很像对的，但是文章理解一下就明白为什么错了。 第一个黑体：“因为好多银行高管买自己的股票”， ...

明白,现在理解为什么D中关于第一个BF是错的,谢谢

virgmat

云游 发表于 2013-9-3 14:12
Personal POV:

Pay close attention to the diction adopted before and in the B.F. portion--it says t ...

  Thanks for you detailed reply, actually,  I never think that the second BF has explained " why those bank top executives' buying of their own banks' share", however it is just a PREMISE of main conclusion" Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic", so it should be an explanation for main conclusion.
  You mentioned that the explanation should be 100% to prove the accuracy of something, I'm afraid I can't fully agree, as "explanation" is not "evidence", it can be stated subjectively. Although there is a MIGHT, but author's opnion is clearly confirmed.
  Look forward to your further advise if it is not too dizzy for you

云游

virgmat 发表于 2013-9-3 18:59
Thanks for you detailed reply, actually,  I never think that the second BF has explained " why t ...

Hey there,

Please kindly read answer choice D closely.

If I got it correctly, it states that the first sentence describe a circumstance which is in need of an explanation and the second sentence is that explanation. So, as is also noticed by you, the second sentence has not explained this circumstance--several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank.

I thought I might be wrong in citing the property of "explanation" as evidence.So please neglect it for the time being.  

virgmat

云游 发表于 2013-9-4 16:50
Hey there,

Please kindly read answer choice D closely.

Yes, I agree, now I am well noted about the error of the first sentence in option D.
Nevertheless, what make me confused is the answer explanation of option D in OG, that never mentions the fault of first sentence, but just criticize the second sentence, here I quote the original text for your reference~

"The second statement is not itself offered as an explanation of why these bank executives are investing in the bank; if it were, that would mean that the bank executives are doing so because corporate executives are known to do such things in a calculated effort to dispel worries. Furthermore the argument does not conclude that this other explanation(which the boldfaced portion points to) is correct, only that the one inferred by depositors may not be."

Personally think the explanation above doesn't hit the mark, because the second sentence of D is "gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish",not gives the explanation of the reason of investment, and what argument seeks to establish is main conclusion, right?

I shouldn't have doubted the authority of the OG but it's indeed illogical for me.

jennychiu

enkyklios 发表于 2013-9-3 14:37
因为我没有做过一方面的训练，不会专业术语。

我只能按汉语理解；  

啊啊啊啊啊，看懂了诶~~~~~··豁然开朗。谢谢啦